GERSINE NAZARET RAOUL VEY v THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF THE COUNTY COURT OF MONTLUÇON, FRANCE (A CATEGORY 1 TERRITORY)

A European arrest warrant must provide clear particulars of the circumstances in which the requested person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute it. A history of accusations against other people will not ordinarily satisfy that requirement. The extradition court must not investigate the merits of the proposed prosecution, but it must be satisfied that the statutory requirements for a valid warrant have been met. It may draw reasonable inferences from the material, but gaps cannot be filled by guesswork. Failure to comply with the requirements governing the warrant’s validity deprives the court of jurisdiction to order extradition. The court expressed tentative concerns about whether proceedings sought merely for questioning satisfy the requirement that extradition be for the purpose of prosecution, but left that issue unresolved.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by Senior District Judge Workman at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court on 23 May 2005 for her extradition to France. The request concerned an alleged murder and followed a replacement European arrest warrant issued on 4 February 2005.

The warrant stated that the appellant was accused and that extradition was sought to take proceedings against her. However, its factual description principally recounted conflicting statements made by her son and did not clearly identify the appellant’s alleged conduct. The central issues were whether the warrant complied with sections 2(3) and 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether extradition was sought for prosecution or merely questioning.

1. Appeal allowed. The appellant was discharged because the European arrest warrant did not comply with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. The absence of the required particulars went to the warrant’s validity, which was the foundation of the District Judge’s jurisdiction.
2. The extradition court must respect judicial decisions of another Member State and must not inquire into the merits or evidential adequacy of the proposed prosecution. Nevertheless, mutual trust requires sufficient clarity. The court may draw reasonable inferences from the material, but cannot fill material gaps by guesswork. The approach was consistent with Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2005] 3 WLR 1079.
3. Section 2(4)(c) required particulars of the circumstances in which the appellant was alleged to have committed the offence and of the conduct alleged to constitute it, together with the relevant time, place and legal provision. The warrant mainly described the son’s arrest, questioning, confession and accusations. It did not explain what the appellant was alleged to have done. A bare accusation might sometimes suffice, but did not do so here.
4. An adjournment to allow the French authorities to repair the defects was inappropriate. The lack of particulars was connected with the unresolved uncertainty about whether extradition was sought for prosecution or merely for questioning.
5. The court expressed tentative views that the concept of being accused may require a purposive interpretation, having regard to differing criminal procedures and the Framework Decision. It did not finally determine whether the initiation of formal poursuites, or the appellant’s alleged status as mise en examen, satisfied section 2(3), because that issue was unnecessary to the decision.

• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: Senior District Judge Workman ordered the appellant’s extradition to France on 23 May 2005.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was allowed and the appellant was discharged.