Lacorre v High Instance Court of Paris

For an extradition warrant to comply with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, it must identify the alleged conduct, time, place and relevant foreign-law provision with sufficient clarity. It need not provide the detail required in domestic criminal pleadings. A bracket of dates may suffice where the activity cannot be assigned to particular days.

For section 64(2), conduct may occur in the requesting territory where acts performed elsewhere intentionally produce the offence’s harm there. The court may draw natural inferences from the warrant, but cannot fill an obvious evidential gap by guesswork. A warrant describing drug trafficking from Morocco to Spain, without identifying substantive conduct in France or relying on France’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, does not establish a French extradition offence.

Marc Lacorre appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Tubbs’s order at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for his extradition to France under a European Arrest Warrant.

The warrant alleged conspiracy to traffic cannabis resin and substantive offences of importing, transporting, possessing, selling and commercialising drugs. The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the particulars under section 2(4)(c), and contended that the alleged offences did not satisfy sections 10 and 64 because the conduct was described principally as occurring between Morocco and Spain.

The central issues were whether the warrant sufficiently identified the alleged conduct, time and place, and whether the substantive offences were extradition offences in relation to France.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The warrant complied with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. The particulars sufficiently identified the alleged criminal conduct and the appellant’s participation. The warrant was not required to resemble particulars of an indictment or a domestic pleading.
2. A period covering 2004, 2005 and 2006 was sufficient identification of time. Following Crean v Ireland [2007] EWHC 814 (Admin), specific dates were not required where the alleged activity could properly be described by a period. The court also adopted the approach in Office of the King's Prosecutor Brussels v Armas [2005] UKHL 67, that extradition provisions should be applied in a spirit of co-operation and comity.
3. For section 64(2)(a), it is sufficient that some relevant conduct occurred in France and none occurred in the United Kingdom. Conduct performed outside the requesting territory may qualify if its intended effect is to bring about the offence’s harm within that territory. The principle applies to cross-border offences.
4. The conspiracy charge satisfied that requirement because the warrant alleged meetings and arrangements in France. The substantive charge did not. The warrant described trafficking from Morocco to Spain, but did not identify importation, transportation, possession, sale or commercialisation in France. Nor did it indicate that France was exercising jurisdiction over conduct abroad under its criminal law.
5. The alternative route under section 64(5) could not be relied upon. The respondent had no instructions and the warrant contained no information establishing that the conduct was punishable under French law as required by section 64(5)(c). The court could draw natural inferences, but could not use guesswork to fill the gap. The appellant was discharged on the substantive charge, and extradition proceeded on the conspiracy charge alone.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was allowed in part. The substantive charge was discharged, but extradition proceeded on the conspiracy charge.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tubbs ordered extradition to France on 11 July 2008.