Thompson v Public Prosecutor of Boulogne Sur Mer

A European arrest warrant must contain the mandatory statements and information required by section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. The court may examine the warrant as a whole, but cannot remedy a failure to satisfy section 2 by relying on unauthenticated extraneous material. An accusation warrant must state unequivocally that the person is sought for arrest and extradition for the purpose of being prosecuted. It must also give particulars of the sentence which may be imposed for each offence, so that the extradition-offence and specialty requirements can be assessed. A narrative sufficiently particularising the circumstances of an offence may satisfy section 2(4)(c). Defects in the mandatory requirements render the warrant invalid.

The claimant was sought by the French judicial authority under a European arrest warrant concerning alleged tobacco smuggling, counterfeit bank cards and handling stolen vehicles. The District Judge had rejected a passage-of-time objection and dealt with the matter on the basis that the claimant was wanted as an accused person.

On appeal, the claimant challenged the warrant for failing to identify clearly whether it was an accusation or conviction warrant, failing to state that he was sought for prosecution, failing to particularise the sentence for each offence, and failing to particularise the handling offence. Information later supplied by the French prosecutor stated that the claimant had been convicted in absentia, but it was unauthenticated and no application was made to admit it. The central issues were whether the warrant complied with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 and whether its defects could be cured by material outside the warrant.

1. The appeal was allowed. The warrant was an accusation warrant, not a conviction warrant. Although its opening wording was ambiguous, the warrant read as a whole referred to maximum sentences and an ongoing preliminary investigation.

2. The warrant failed to comply with section 2(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003. The expression “for legal proceedings” was broader than the statutory requirement that the person be sought for the purpose of being prosecuted. The French expression poursuites pénales did not cure the deficiency on the material before the court, particularly because the warrant suggested that the procedural position remained undecided.

3. The statutory requirements are mandatory. A warrant which is not a Part 1 warrant cannot be supplemented by extraneous information. The summary nature of the European arrest warrant procedure makes it inappropriate, save in exceptional circumstances, to conduct detailed inquiries into foreign criminal procedure or rely on contested expert evidence where the warrant itself does not provide the required information.

4. The warrant also failed to comply with section 2(4)(d). It stated only that seven years’ imprisonment was the maximum sentence, without making clear whether that applied to each offence or all offences. The particulars of sentence for each offence were required to assess whether the relevant threshold was met and to address specialty.

5. The challenge under section 2(4)(c) failed. The narrative concerning the stolen vehicles, cloned registration plates and the claimant’s connection with the vehicles sufficiently particularised the circumstances of the handling offence.

6. The warrant was nevertheless invalid because of the failures under sections 2(3)(b) and 2(4). It was quashed. Legal aid costs were to be assessed in the usual way.

The claimant appealed to the Divisional Court from the District Judge’s extradition decision. The District Judge had rejected the passage-of-time objection and proceeded on the basis that the claimant was sought as an accused person. The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and quashed the warrant.