Akaroglu v Government of Romania & Anor

For extradition requests under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court may examine the request and accompanying documents as a whole to determine whether the person is sought as an accused person or as someone unlawfully at large after conviction. The Secretary of State may draw reasonable inferences from the documentation, but must not rely on guesswork. A certificate under section 70 certifies the validity and approved manner of the request; it does not determine the accused-or-convicted issue.

The District Judge cannot review or go behind the Secretary of State’s certificate, but must independently check under section 78(2) that the required documents have been supplied. A challenge to unlawful certification is by judicial review, because the statutory appeal provisions do not provide an appeal against certification.

The appellant challenged the decision of District Judge Evans to send his case to the Secretary of State under section 92 of the Extradition Act 2003, following Romania’s request for his extradition. The Secretary of State had certified the request under section 70 and later ordered extradition. The appellant also sought permission for judicial review of the certification.

The central issue was whether the Romanian request and supporting papers sufficiently established that he was accused of offences, rather than unlawfully at large after conviction. A further issue was whether the District Judge or the statutory appeal provisions permitted review of the Secretary of State’s certification.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because the Secretary of State had acted lawfully.
2. Under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003, the relevant question was whether the request, read together with its accompanying documents, contained the information required by section 70(4) and was made in the approved way. The court was entitled to draw inferences from the material supplied. This was not guesswork: the documents, including an arrest warrant and the absence of a certificate of conviction, pointed overwhelmingly to the appellant being sought as an accused person.
3. The repeated translation of the appellant and others as “convicts” did not alter that conclusion. The documentation referred to criminal prosecution, evasion of prosecution, preparation of the defence and an arrest warrant. The Secretary of State was therefore entitled, and obliged, to issue the certificate.
4. The District Judge had no power to review the Secretary of State’s decision to certify. Section 78(2), however, required him to decide whether the documents sent to him included the papers specified by that provision, including an arrest warrant in the case of an accused person or a certificate of conviction in the case of a person alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction. He was entitled to conclude that the arrest warrant was sufficient and that the appellant was accused.
5. Part 2 created sequential stages. Certification was preliminary to the extradition hearing. The appeal under section 103 concerned the District Judge’s decision sending the case to the Secretary of State, while the appeal under section 108 concerned the Secretary of State’s extradition order. Neither provision created an appeal against the earlier certification decision.
6. A lawful challenge to certification under section 70 was therefore by judicial review. The appeal against the District Judge’s decision was dismissed.

• District Judge Evans: On 2 October 2006, sent the case to the Secretary of State under section 92 of the Extradition Act 2003.
• Secretary of State: Certified the Romanian request under section 70 and ordered extradition.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Dismissed the appeal under section 103 and refused permission for judicial review of the certification.