Louca v Public Prosecutor In Bielefel, Germany

An EAW must contain evidence of the enforceable domestic judgment, arrest warrant or equivalent decision on which it is based. It need not identify earlier EAWs that have been replaced or are no longer relied upon. The information required under section 2(4)(c) must be read as a whole, and sufficient particulars may be given without specifying every stage of a smuggling route. In deciding whether extradition is barred by passage of time, the requested person must prove a causal connection between the delay and the alleged oppression or injustice. The court should not investigate the requesting state’s criminal law or refer questions concerning that law where the statutory and Framework Decision requirements are otherwise met. Article 8 requires striking and unusual facts before family-life considerations make extradition disproportionate.

The appeals arose from extradition orders made by Senior District Judge Workman at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Louca’s extradition to Germany was ordered in respect of six cigarette-smuggling offences. Kaba’s surrender to France was ordered in respect of four offences. Both appellants argued that their EAWs were invalid because they failed to mention earlier EAWs issued for the same offences.

Louca also challenged the particularity of the warrant, the classification of the offences as extradition offences, the effect of the passage of time and compatibility with article 8 of the Convention. The central statutory question was whether “any other warrant” meant an earlier EAW or the domestic warrant on which the current EAW was based.

1. Appeals dismissed. The court rejected every ground advanced by Louca and Kaba.
2. Section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 had to be interpreted in conformity with the Framework Decision. Article 8(1)(c), read with its annexed form, required evidence of the enforceable judgment, arrest warrant or equivalent judicial decision on which the EAW was based. The reference to a decision within the scope of articles 1 and 2 concerned the purpose and seriousness of the underlying domestic decision. It did not refer to a previous EAW. Earlier EAWs were generally replaced by later warrants and served no useful purpose once no longer relied upon.
3. The absence of references to earlier EAWs therefore did not invalidate either warrant. Kaba’s appeal failed on that issue.
4. The information in Louca’s EAW satisfied section 2(4)(c). The warrant was to be read as a whole. Its references to Minden, Seckenhausen and other places in Germany, together with the description of storage and transport, sufficiently identified the places of the alleged offences. The withdrawn earlier EAWs could not be used to assess the validity of the extant warrant. The third offence was also sufficiently particularised by the general description of the alleged criminal organisation and conduct.
5. Following Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid [2007] UKHL 6, the extradition judge was not required to examine the requesting state’s criminal law when applying section 64(3). The material in the warrant concerning the nature, legal classification and potential punishment was sufficient. Any necessary reference to the European Court of Justice should be made by the requesting state’s courts.
6. Louca had not proved that the hardship relied upon was causally connected to the four-year delay. The consequences of separation, business failure and imprisonment would have occurred earlier as well. Nor did his previous sentence establish oppression under section 14.
7. The article 8 challenge was hopeless. Germany had an obvious and direct connection with the alleged offences. Applying Jaso and others v Central Criminal Court No 2 Madrid [2007] EWHC 2983 (Admin), only striking and unusual facts could make extradition disproportionate, and those facts were absent.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Senior District Judge Workman ordered Louca’s extradition to Germany and Kaba’s surrender to France. The judgment rejected the objections concerning earlier EAWs, warrant particulars and, in Louca’s case, passage of time and article 8.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeals were dismissed.