Dara v Public Prosecutor Regional Court of Marburg, Germany

For extradition under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, an arrest warrant need not set out every legal constituent of the alleged offence. It must provide particulars of the circumstances, including the alleged conduct, time, place and relevant local-law provision, with sufficient detail to identify the criminal conduct. Conduct may occur in the requesting state where the requested person is alleged to have procured or brought about an unlawful export from that state, and the effects of the conduct are felt there. The dual-criminality requirement may be satisfied by English territorial jurisdiction even where the requested person is not a United Kingdom person. The appeal was dismissed.

The claimant appealed against an extradition order made by the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 8 May 2007. Germany, a category 1 territory under the Extradition Act 2003, sought his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant concerning the procurement from Germany of equipment intended for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme.

The claimant argued that the warrant failed to particularise the alleged conduct under section 2(4)(c), that the alleged conduct did not occur in Germany for the purposes of sections 64(2) and 64(3), and that dual criminality under section 64(3)(b) was not established.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Because Germany was a category 1 territory, the court was not concerned with prima facie evidential sufficiency. The relevant questions were whether a proper Part 1 warrant had been issued and whether the alleged offences were extradition offences under sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.

2. Section 2(4)(c) requires particulars of the circumstances in which the offence was allegedly committed, including the conduct, time, place and relevant provision of local law. It does not require every legal constituent of the offence to be stated expressly. The warrant sufficiently identified the claimant’s alleged intention, knowledge that a licence was required, participation in illegal exportation, role as perpetrator, and use of the German supplier as an innocent agent. The court expressly endorsed the approach in Von Der Pahlan v Government of Austria [2006] EWHC 1672 (Admin).

3. For sections 64(2) and 64(3), the warrant alleged conduct occurring in Germany. The alleged procurement of equipment in Germany, intended for unlawful export, and the bringing about from Pakistan of exports contrary to German law were sufficient. The effects of the alleged conduct were felt in Germany. The court applied the reasoning in Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others [2005] UKHL 67.

4. Dual criminality under section 64(3)(b) was also established. Section 47(3)(b) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 criminalised participation in developing or producing a nuclear weapon, including acts facilitating another person’s capability to do so. Section 47(7) extended English jurisdiction to wholly foreign acts by a United Kingdom person; it did not exclude ordinary territorial jurisdiction where effects were felt in England. The hypothetical conduct would therefore constitute an offence under English law even if committed by a Pakistani national in England.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the extradition order made by the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 8 May 2007.