Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain

The House considered the validity of a European arrest warrant (EAW) under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, in particular whether the "certificate" required by section 64(2)(b) and (c) must be a document separate from the warrant itself. The court interpreted Part 1 in light of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the principle of mutual recognition, and held that a European arrest warrant that complies with the form and is signed by an issuing judicial authority can itself satisfy the section 64(2) requirement to "show" that the conduct falls within the framework list and is punishable by at least three years' detention. The court also addressed section 64(3) (the preserved double‑criminality route), the judge's powers to seek further information or limit the temporal scope of an EAW, and the judge's lack of need to examine the full text of foreign criminal law when deciding the section 64(3) question.

Key statutory provisions considered included section 64(2) and (3) and section 2(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 and Article 2 of the Framework Decision. The judgment emphasised that Part 1 must be read consistently with Community law (see Pupino) and that adding formalities not required by the Framework Decision would undermine its purpose of simplified, expedited surrender between member states.

Background and parties:

The appellant, Moutaz Almallah Dabas, was the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the Central Court of Committal Proceedings No 6, High Court of Justice, Madrid, charging him with collaboration with an Islamist terrorist organisation in connection with the Madrid train bombings of 11 March 2004. The EAW complied with the annex form of the Framework Decision and was signed by the issuing judge. District Judge Anthony Evans ordered surrender. The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Latham LJ and Jack J) dismissed the appellant's appeal: [2006] EWHC 971 (Admin). The appellant appealed to the House of Lords.

Nature of application and issues:

• Nature of claim: appeal against an order for surrender under a European arrest warrant; the appellant resisted surrender.
• Certified issues: (i) whether section 64(2)(b) and (c) requires a separate certificate or whether the EAW itself can be the certificate; (ii) whether part of the alleged conduct occurring before a relevant UK offence existed defeats the double criminality test in section 64(3); and (iii) whether the Part 1 warrant must set out or make available the text of the foreign law relied on.

Procedural history:

Order for surrender by District Judge Anthony Evans; dismissal by Queen's Bench Divisional Court ([2006] EWHC 971 (Admin)); appeal to House of Lords.

Court's reasoning and resolution:

1. Certificate issue: reading section 64(2) in the statutory context and in light of the Framework Decision, the majority held the warrant itself, authenticated and signed by the issuing judicial officer and containing the required information in the form, could constitute the certificate that "shows" the matters in section 64(2)(b) and (c). The court relied on the Framework Decision's objectives (mutual recognition, simplification and urgency) and on the obligation to interpret national implementing law so as to achieve the Framework Decision's result (Pupino). Requiring a separate formal document in every case would introduce a needless formalism inconsistent with those objectives. Lord Scott dissented on this point, preferring a stricter reading that required an express certificate, but agreed the appeal failed on other grounds.
2. Divided conduct / double criminality (section 64(3)): the court explained that where parts of the narrative in an EAW are background only, the judge should focus on the conduct relied on for extradition. If parts of the conduct predate the relevant UK law, the judge may limit the scope of the warrant or seek further information; he may also adjourn to obtain supplementary information. The judge could, where appropriate, confine the warrant temporally to satisfy double criminality rather than discharge the person outright.
3. Foreign law issue: the court held that section 2(4)(c) requires particulars of the legal classification but does not require the full text of the foreign law to be set out in the warrant. Requiring courts to analyse foreign law texts would undermine the Framework Decision's aim of speed and mutual trust. The process provides adequate protection for Convention rights.

Result: the majority dismissed the appeal, holding the EAW validly met the requirements of section 64(2) (and in any event section 64(3) was satisfiable); Lord Scott dissented only on the construction of section 64(2).

Appeal dismissed. The House held that a European arrest warrant that complies with the Framework Decision form and is authenticated by the issuing judicial authority can itself satisfy the "certificate" requirement in section 64(2)(b) and (c) of the Extradition Act 2003; Part 1 must be read to give effect to the Framework Decision and the principle of mutual recognition. The court further held that (i) where necessary a judge may limit the temporal scope of a warrant or seek further information to satisfy the double criminality test under section 64(3), and (ii) the Part 1 warrant need not contain the full text of the foreign law relied on.

District Judge Anthony Evans (Bow Street Magistrates' Court) ordered surrender; Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Latham LJ and Jack J) dismissed the appellant's appeal [2006] EWHC 971 (Admin); appeal to the House of Lords allowed hearing and judgment reported [2007] UKHL 6.