Farnesi v Court of Livorno, Italy

In European arrest warrant proceedings, the information required by section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 is a description of the alleged circumstances, including the time, place and the requested person’s participation. It need not meet the level of particularity required for an indictment or domestic pleading. The description must nevertheless identify an extradition offence and provide enough information to inform the requested person of the nature and extent of the allegations and, where necessary, to permit transposition into an equivalent domestic offence. In an Article 8 case, extradition may be disproportionate only where the effect on family life is sufficiently striking and unusual. The court upheld the decisions ordering extradition.

Guilana Farnesi and Samir Hussein Fawaz appealed against orders made by District Judge Tubbs at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 5 November 2008 in category 1 extradition proceedings. European arrest warrants issued by the Court of Livorno sought their extradition to Italy for participation in a criminal organisation and counterfeiting or falsifying credit cards.

Both appellants argued that the warrants lacked adequate particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. Mr Farnesi additionally disputed whether the alleged conduct constituted an extradition offence. Mr Fawaz challenged the finding as to identity and relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, based principally on his caring responsibilities for his adult son and grandson.

1. Appeals dismissed. The European arrest warrants contained sufficient particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. The statutory requirement calls for a description of the alleged conduct, time, place and participation. It does not require the specificity demanded of an indictment or domestic pleading.
2. The warrants named the alleged conspirators, described the nature of the conspiracy, gave a period beginning in or about 2007 and ending with the warrants, and identified four specific manifestations of the alleged conspiracy. They sufficiently located the activity in Italy, including Pisa, and described the appellants’ alleged roles in England and between England and Italy. It was unnecessary to identify the use made of the cards or any resulting loss.
3. Mr Farnesi’s associated argument failed. The warrant plainly alleged conduct occurring from February or March 2007 onwards, so the alleged offences were extradition offences.
4. Mr Fawaz’s identity was sufficiently established on the balance of probabilities. The discrepancy concerning his birthplace, omission of one name and other matters relied upon either were inconsequential or went to the substance of the allegations. The photograph attached to the Italian warrant identified the person sought as the appellant.
5. The Article 8 challenge also failed. The additional evidence concerning Mr Fawaz’s son and grandson did not materially alter the position considered by the District Judge. Applying the correct legal approach, the District Judge was entitled to conclude that the circumstances were not sufficiently striking and unusual to make extradition disproportionate. There was no error of law or misappreciation of the facts.
6. Mr Fawaz’s remaining ground had been dealt with privately and dismissed. Both appeals therefore failed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2009] EWHC 1199 (Admin) — appeals against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court orders of 5 November 2008 dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tubbs ordered extradition in category 1 proceedings on 5 November 2008.