Islam v Paphos District Court of Cyprus

A European arrest warrant is valid if it gives sufficient particulars of the alleged criminal conduct to inform the requested person of the nature and extent of the allegations. Where the overall allegation is conspiracy, the warrant need not apportion every incident among the additional substantive offences listed, provided the conspiracy and supporting facts are adequately particularised. The dual-criminality requirement is satisfied where the conduct would constitute an offence in the United Kingdom, including conspiracy. Courts should avoid imposing technical requirements or additional formalities inconsistent with the objectives of the European arrest warrant system, particularly mutual recognition and speedy surrender.

Johirul Islam appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by District Judge Tubbs at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 27 November 2008. The order required his extradition to Cyprus under section 21(3), pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued by the Paphos District Court.

The warrant alleged twenty incidents involving false credit cards and related offences, together with conspiracy to commit a felony. Islam argued that the warrant failed to particularise his involvement and failed to identify which of seven Cypriot offences related to each incident. The central issues were whether the warrant satisfied section 2(4)(c) and whether the absence of such apportionment prevented the court from applying section 64(3).

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant contained sufficient particulars for the purposes of section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. It described the alleged conduct in detail, identified the relevant dates, places and incidents, and provided evidence from which the District Judge could infer that Islam had participated in a joint criminal enterprise and conspiracy. The warrant was not defective merely because there was no evidence placing him personally at each bank.

2. The approach to the required description of an offence was informed by the Council Framework Decision on European Arrest Warrants (2002). As explained in Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland [2007] EWHC 3106 Admin, the description must give the requested person an adequate understanding of the nature and extent of the allegations, while recognising the objective of simplifying extradition procedures.

3. The dual-criminality requirement in section 64(3) was met. The relevant conduct would constitute an offence of conspiracy under the law of England and Wales. The warrant’s reference to other Cypriot offences did not invalidate it, and section 64(3) did not require the prosecution to identify which substantive Cypriot offence corresponded to every individual incident.

4. The court was entitled to regard conspiracy as the overall charge and the individual incidents as evidence supporting that charge. It need not determine whether a Cypriot court would require an election between conspiracy and substantive charges, or which substantive offence best fitted each incident. Requiring further apportionment would introduce an unwarranted degree of technicality and caused no prejudice to Islam.

5. The reasoning was consistent with Dabas v High Court of Justice Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6, which emphasised mutual recognition, uniform effect and speedy surrender under the European arrest warrant system.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tubbs ordered extradition to Cyprus on 27 November 2008 under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 was dismissed.