Haynes v Court of Magistrates, Malta

A European arrest warrant must state with sufficient clarity and particularity the offences for which surrender is sought and the sentence that may be imposed. The particulars of sentence required by section 2(4)(d) of the Extradition Act 2003 must appear in the warrant itself. External material cannot ordinarily cure the omission, save where the warrant is ambiguous. A warrant is invalid where it lists several bodily-harm offences, provisions and counts without identifying the provision and maximum sentence applicable to each offence. The court should not investigate evidence to determine whether the underlying charges are made out.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Malta. He was sought under a European arrest warrant to continue a Maltese trial concerning alleged road-rage assaults. The warrant referred to six offences, several provisions of the Maltese Criminal Code, three framework offences involving grievous bodily injury, and additional offences involving slight bodily harm.

The appeal concerned the formal validity of the warrant, whether the conduct shown constituted extradition offences, and alleged abuse of process. The central issue was whether the warrant sufficiently identified the offences and applicable sentences.

1. Appeal allowed. The District Judge’s order was quashed, the claimant was discharged, and detailed assessment was ordered for public funding purposes.
2. The warrant was a serious muddle. It referred to more than six offences, several bodily-harm provisions, three framework-list offences and additional slight-bodily-harm offences, without identifying which provision applied to which offence or how the allegations fitted together.
3. Under section 2(4)(d) of the Extradition Act 2003, the warrant had to contain particulars of the sentence that might be imposed. Following Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6, external information could not ordinarily supply those particulars. The possible exception for ambiguity, identified in Kuprevicius v Vice Minister of Justice, Ministry of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1518, did not assist here.
4. It was possible to conclude safely only that surrender was sought in respect of at least one grievous-bodily-injury offence concerning Mr Shepherd. Even for that offence, the warrant did not identify the applicable Maltese provision or state clearly whether the nine-year figure applied to that offence, each count, or all bodily-harm offences collectively. It therefore failed to satisfy section 2(4)(d).
5. The court should not examine evidence from the requesting state’s trial to decide whether the charges were made out. That would approach the merits of the prosecution and was inconsistent with the scheme of the framework decision. The principle reflected in Re: Evans [1994] 1 WLR 1006 remained relevant.
6. The court considered the late-produced charge sheet under the principles stated in Miklis v The Deputy Prosecutor of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1032 Admin, but declined to rely on it because its status was uncertain and resolving that issue would have required an adjournment.
7. The defects in the warrant were sufficient to dispose of the appeal. The alleged abuse of process ground was therefore unnecessary and inappropriate to determine.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order; quashed the order and directed the claimant’s discharge.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Nicholas Evans ordered extradition to Malta under the European arrest warrant.