Barnard v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor

Extradition warrants must be read as a whole. An address described as the last known address in the requesting state, together with an allegation that the defendant had absconded, did not establish misleading evidence, perjury or abuse of process. An apparent error in selecting a warrant form option did not invalidate the warrants where there was no evidence that summonses had not been issued and the warrants were properly authorised. An issue raised for the first time on appeal will not justify interference where, even if taken below, it could not have altered the decision to refer the extradition request onward.

Allegations of sexual assault were made against the claimant in Australia. After he returned to the United Kingdom, warrants were issued in Victoria and Australia requested his extradition. The Secretary of State certified that the request had been made in an approved way.

On 20 October 2006, District Judge Evans considered the extradition material and referred the matter to the Secretary of State. No challenge was made then to the validity of the warrants, the paperwork or abuse of process. The claimant appealed under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003, alleging misleading evidence, perjury and defects in 33 warrants. He abandoned his appeal under section 108. The central issue was whether the alleged defects invalidated the warrants or otherwise prevented the extradition request from proceeding.

1. Outcome. The section 108 appeal was dismissed during the hearing. The appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
2. The warrants had to be read as a whole. The address in Meadowlark Lane was described as the claimant’s last known address in Australia, and the warrants also stated that he had absconded or had fled Australia to avoid attending court. Those statements did not show that the Australian officers had attempted to mislead the issuing court. The allegations of perjury and abuse of process therefore failed.
3. The fact that six warrants selected an option referring to avoidance of service of a summons did not invalidate them. There was no evidence that summonses had not been issued. The Magistrates’ Court had been entitled to proceed on the assumption that the warrants were properly issued and authorised.
4. The challenge to the selected option had not been made before the District Judge. Applying section 104(4), the court considered whether the point would have produced a different decision below. Even if it had been raised, the District Judge would have been bound, on the material before him, to find that warrants existed which justified the extradition request and to refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
5. Accordingly, the alleged defects could not affect the decision under appeal. Mr Justice Lloyd Jones agreed with Lady Justice Hallett’s judgment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant’s appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed. His appeal under section 108 was dismissed during the hearing.
• District Judge Evans: On 20 October 2006, the District Judge considered the extradition material and referred the matter to the Secretary of State.