Gabriel v Court of First Instance and Instruction No 1 of Cadiz, Spain

Under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, a European Arrest Warrant must give particulars of the circumstances alleged, including the requested person's conduct and degree of participation. A broad omnibus description is insufficient. The warrant must be read as a whole, allowing for translation. It need not disclose the evidence supporting the allegation or establish a case to answer. The executing court must not investigate the merits of the proposed prosecution. Where the warrant identifies the offence, describes the requested person's alleged role, and is issued for prosecution by a competent judicial authority, a challenge based on alleged want of particulars or an assertion that the person is wanted only for questioning will fail.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Evans's order of 20 January 2009 extraditing him to Spain under Part 1. A European Arrest Warrant issued by the Court of First Instance and Instruction No 1 of Cadiz alleged drug trafficking and stated that the claimant was suspected of being crew of a vessel containing concealed hashish.

The claimant argued that the warrant insufficiently particularised his conduct under section 2(4)(c), and that the United Kingdom authorities could not be satisfied that he was accused for prosecution rather than merely wanted for questioning. The central issues were whether the warrant described the circumstances and degree of participation sufficiently, and whether the executing court could examine the evidential basis of the allegation.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant was a valid Part 1 warrant and sufficiently particularised the alleged conduct for section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The requirement for particulars means that a broad omnibus description of criminal conduct will not suffice. The person sought must understand the offence alleged and the nature and extent of the allegations. The guidance in Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland [2007] EWHC 3106 (Admin) was treated as helpful.
3. The warrant had to be read as a whole, with appropriate allowance for translation. It identified drug trafficking involving a substantial quantity of hashish and alleged that the claimant participated as crew of the vessel in which the drugs were concealed. That was a description of his conduct and degree of participation, not merely an inference from unexplained circumstances.
4. The warrant was not required to set out the evidence supporting the allegation. The District Judge was not required to decide whether there was a case to answer. Examining the sufficiency of the evidence or the Spanish authorities' inferences would constitute an impermissible investigation into the merits, contrary to the principle of neutral recognition underlying the Framework Decision.
5. Once the warrant was accepted as describing the claimant's conduct and participation, the associated challenge under section 2(3)(b) fell away. The warrant requested return for criminal trial proceedings, was signed by a competent judicial authority, and disclosed nothing indicating that the claimant was wanted only for questioning.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Evans ordered extradition on 20 January 2009. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003.