Aryantash v Tribunal De Grand Instance, Lille, France

A typographical error in a European arrest warrant does not invalidate the warrant where the error is immaterial and the relevant statutory framework does not require the erroneous detail. The court should examine the warrant as a whole and may clarify apparent errors by contacting the issuing judicial authority. A material or unresolved error may require further scrutiny, but an immaterial typographical error does not affect validity under section 2 of the 2003 Act.

The claimant appealed against an extradition order made by District Judge Nicholas Evans following his arrest at Liverpool John Lennon Airport under a European arrest warrant issued by the Tribunal de Grand Instance, Lille. The warrant contained an incorrect date, which was inconsistent with its narrative and was later clarified by the French authorities. The claimant also advanced an abuse of process argument based on the issue of a replacement warrant. The central issue was whether the dating error invalidated the warrant for the purposes of section 2 of the 2003 Act.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court agreed with the District Judge that the European arrest warrant was valid.
2. The warrant stated an incorrect year for its date. Read as a whole, the surrounding details made clear that this was a typographical error, namely the insertion of 2007 instead of 2008. The error was wholly immaterial.
3. Neither section 2 of the 2003 Act nor the European Framework Decision required the relevant date to be stated in the warrant. The absence of such a statutory requirement reinforced the conclusion that the error did not affect validity.
4. The Senior District Judge was entitled to examine the warrant carefully and to seek clarification from the issuing judicial authorities where another date, relating to an international letter of request, appeared erroneous. Judicial authorities must be able to distinguish immaterial errors from errors which are or may be material. A material error would require proper examination, but a typographical error of the present kind could not invalidate the warrant.
5. The proposed abuse of process argument, based on the issue of a further warrant with the corrected date, was wholly unsustainable and was not properly pursued before the court. The court also declined to pursue a further argument concerning another person involved in the underlying investigation.
6. The court observed that treating an immaterial typographical error as invalidating the warrant would undermine the operation of European arrest warrants and mutual confidence between Member States.

• Magistrates' Court: The Senior District Judge held that the dating error was immaterial and did not invalidate the warrant. District Judge Nicholas Evans subsequently ordered the claimant's extradition.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed.