Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor of Creteil, France

Under section 31 of the Extradition Act 2003, the High Court may extend the period for beginning an extradition appeal retrospectively, including after the period has expired. The power may be exercised without an application and depends on the interests of justice.

A European arrest warrant is not invalid merely because it does not expressly categorise the requested person as accused or convicted, provided it complies with Article 8 and the Framework Decision. Where a person convicted in absentia is entitled to a retrial, the warrant should contain particulars of the same general degree required for an accusation case. The warrant need not provide a narrative of the evidence, identify witnesses or state every evidential detail.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to France. The European arrest warrant concerned alleged organised fraud and related offences. The appellant had been convicted in his absence in France but was entitled to reopen the case on return.

The appeal raised three issues: whether the statutory time limit had expired without an available extension; whether the warrant was defective because it treated the appellant as convicted and lacked further particulars; and whether inadequate particulars created a specialty bar under section 17.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge’s extradition order was upheld.
2. Section 31(4) and (5) of the Extradition Act 2003 permits the High Court to extend the relevant period retrospectively, even after expiry and without a prior application by a party. Section 31(6) operates if the court decides not to grant an extension. The court granted the extension required to begin the hearing because this was in the interests of justice. Relevant considerations included the absence of prejudice caused by the delay and the fact that the appellant was serving a domestic sentence rather than being detained for extradition.
3. A warrant complying with Article 8 of the Framework Decision and its annex is not defective merely because it does not expressly state whether it is an accusation or conviction warrant. The English court may need to determine that classification for other statutory purposes, but the warrant itself need not contain the statutory wording verbatim.
4. Because the appellant had been convicted in absentia and was entitled to a retrial, the court treated the warrant as requiring the degree of particularity applicable to an accusation case. That requirement concerns a brief description of the circumstances, including the time, place and the requested person’s participation or conduct. It does not require a case to answer, a narrative of the evidence, identification of prosecution witnesses, the value of property, or every detail relevant to a trial or a passage-of-time objection.
5. The warrant adequately described the places, dates, alleged role and conduct. It was therefore valid whether the appellant was treated as convicted or accused. The specialty argument under section 17 failed because it depended on the rejected challenge to the particulars and there was no evidence of any separate risk.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed and the order upheld.
• House of Lords: an earlier preliminary decision held that the notice of appeal had been served in time; the citation is not stated in the judgment.