Rana v The Public Prosecutor of the Graz Regional Criminal Court, Austria

An EAW must provide particulars of the alleged conduct, time and place sufficient to inform the requested person why surrender is sought. The required detail is fact-sensitive and must reflect the objective of simplifying surrender procedures. A warrant may be sufficient where its natural reading identifies the incidents, deception, relevant period and territory. Evidence disputing the allegations concerns the merits and is for the requesting state’s trial court.

The appellant challenged District Judge Tubbs’s decision of 26 August 2008 ordering his surrender to Austria under an EAW concerning at least eight allegations of aggravated professional fraud. He argued that the warrant failed to particularise the locations of the airports, complainant company, telephone reservations and losses attributable to each offence.

The issues were whether the EAW complied with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether the requirements concerning extradition offences committed in Austria were satisfied.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court adopted Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland [2007] EWHC 3106 (Admin). Section 2(4)(c) requires particulars of the alleged conduct, time and place. The provision must be interpreted consistently with the Framework Decision’s objectives. The amount of detail is fact-sensitive.
2. On its natural reading, the EAW alleged at least eight incidents in which the appellant deceived the HRG travel agency in Graz by falsely claiming authority to use an Air Plus credit card. It sufficiently identified the conduct, time and place and contained no relevant ambiguity.
3. The location of the appellant during telephone reservations, MAGNA’s location and the airports where tickets were collected were immaterial. The offences were committed when and where the travel agents in Graz were deceived. Translation or stylistic imperfections did not invalidate the warrant.
4. Evidence that the appellant was a victim of identity fraud concerned the merits and was irrelevant to the extradition court, though it might be relevant at trial in Austria.
5. The requirements of section 2(4)(c), sections 10 and 64 of the Act were satisfied. The appeal was dismissed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Tubbs ordered surrender on 26 August 2008. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on 7 November 2008.