Mohammed v Public Prosecutor of Paris, France

A European arrest warrant must contain particulars of the circumstances of the alleged offence. Those particulars must identify the alleged conduct, the time and place of its commission, and the relevant provision of law. A broad description of criminality is insufficient, but the statutory requirement is met where the warrant, read as a whole, identifies the alleged conspiracy and provides sufficiently detailed conduct linking the person sought to it. The assessment is fact-sensitive. A comparison with another warrant does not assist unless the alleged conduct and the particulars are materially comparable.

This was a statutory appeal against District Judge Workman’s decision of 4 September 2008 ordering the claimant’s extradition to France. The European arrest warrant alleged that he participated in a criminal conspiracy involving the facilitation of unauthorised entry or residence. The claimant argued that the warrant failed to provide the particulars required by section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act. The central issue was whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars of the alleged conduct, time, place and applicable law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant satisfied section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act and justified the extradition order.
2. The statutory requirement is directed to particulars of the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. As explained in Von der Pahlen v Government of Austria [2006] EWHC 1672, the particulars must include: the conduct alleged to constitute the offence; the time; the place; and the provision of law under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence. A broad omnibus description of the alleged criminal conduct is not enough.
3. Read as a whole, the warrant identified the general conspiracy, its principal organiser, and the claimant’s alleged role. It included telephone numbers and dated and timed summaries of conversations concerning the movement of customers from the United Kingdom to France and Sweden. Those matters were relevant to, and consistent with, the allegation that the claimant participated in a conspiracy to facilitate unauthorised entry or residence.
4. The claimant’s comparison with another person’s warrant did not alter the result. A favourable conclusion in that other case, even if too favourable, could not establish that this warrant was insufficient. In any event, the other warrant concerned payments which might not relate to illegal entry, whereas the conversations in this case could clearly be linked to the movement of illegal immigrants.
5. Mr Justice Underhill agreed with Lord Justice Latham. The claimant’s request for assessment of costs was accepted.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Workman’s decision of 4 September 2008 ordering extradition was upheld and the statutory appeal was dismissed.