Dabas v High Court of Justice Madrid Spain

A European arrest warrant may satisfy the requirements of the Extradition Act 2003 even where it follows the Framework Decision form. The warrant itself may contain the certificate required by section 64(2), provided that the necessary information is clearly stated. The court assesses the conduct specified in the warrant, not an expanded domestic formulation of the alleged offence. For dual criminality, it is sufficient that the specified conduct would constitute an offence in the United Kingdom. The court need not generally examine the precise criminal provisions of the requesting state unless the issue is properly raised. Extradition is incompatible with Convention rights only where the prospective treatment would amount to a flagrant denial or gross violation of those rights.

The appellant challenged the District Judge’s order of 17 November 2005 directing his extradition to Spain under a European arrest warrant. The warrant alleged collaboration with an Islamist terrorist organisation and identified Article 576 of the Spanish Penal Code. The appellant argued that he was wanted only for questioning, that the warrant did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a framework offence, that dual criminality was absent, and that extradition would breach Convention rights through incommunicado detention, secrecy of the investigation, and possible refoulement to Syria.

The appeal concerned the proper construction of Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, particularly sections 2 and 64, and the threshold for Convention incompatibility.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant and supporting material showed that the appellant was accused in Spain and that the warrant was issued for prosecution. The court considered the warrant in context. The description of the issuing court, the alleged offence, the particulars of conduct and the Spanish judge’s finding that there were sufficient reasons to believe the appellant was the perpetrator established more than mere suspicion or a request for questioning. Re Ismail supported a broad, fact-sensitive approach to the word “accused”.
2. The conduct relied on was conduct in Spain. References to the appellant’s travel to the United Kingdom did not allege that he had performed any conduct here forming part of the offence.
3. The warrant itself could constitute the certificate required by section 64(2)(b) and (c). A separate document was unnecessary where the warrant clearly stated that the conduct fell within the framework list and was punishable by the requisite term of imprisonment. This construction gave effect to the Framework Decision while preserving the statutory safeguards.
4. Section 64(3) was also satisfied. The relevant conduct described in the warrant post-dated February 2001, when section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was in force. The notional English conspiracy count’s earlier starting date was irrelevant. Following the approach in Pinochet, the relevant question was whether the specified conduct was criminal when it occurred. The court rejected the contention, based on In re Evans, that the Spanish criminal code had to be examined in every case.
5. The potential use of incommunicado detention and secreto de sumario did not meet the Ullah threshold of a flagrant denial or gross violation of Convention rights. The evidence did not establish a real risk of refoulement sufficient to make extradition incompatible with those rights.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order of 17 November 2005.