Sandi v The Craiova Court, Romania

A conviction European Arrest Warrant need not contain the same level of detail about the underlying offence as an accusation warrant. Under section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, “particulars of the conviction” must be construed purposively in light of the Framework Decision. The warrant will almost always need to state the number of convictions and provide some information about when and where the offences occurred and the requested person’s participation. The detail is fact-sensitive. It must enable the person to understand the conviction and sentence and consider possible bars to extradition. A possible right to retrial on return does not convert a conviction warrant into an accusation warrant.

The appellant had been convicted in Romania in his absence of one offence described as qualified robbery, arising from thefts committed over a specified period. His sentence was ultimately increased to two years’ immediate custody. The Craiova Court issued a European Arrest Warrant, and the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered his extradition under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.

Before the Divisional Court, the sole issue was whether the warrant complied with Part 1 of the Act, particularly the requirement for “particulars of the conviction” in section 2(6)(b). The appellant argued that the warrant required the same particulars of the underlying offence as an accusation warrant. The respondent argued that it required only details of the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed. Hickinbottom J gave the judgment, and Moses LJ agreed.

1. Statutory approach. The starting point was section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, construed purposively in the light of the Framework Decision. A warrant which fails to comply with section 2 is void ab initio. Further information obtained from the requesting judicial authority cannot cure the defect or be relied upon in assessing validity. The court applied the approach in Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6; [2007] 2 AC 31, and the requirement of strict statutory compliance described in The Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and Another [2005] UKHL 67; [2005] 3 WLR 1839.
2. Accusation and conviction warrants. The statutory scheme deliberately distinguishes the two types of warrant. Section 2(4)(c) requires significant particularisation of the alleged conduct, time, place and relevant law for an accusation warrant. That level of detail is not imported into section 2(6)(b). The court distinguished Von der Pahlen v The Government of Austria [2006] EWHC 1672 (Admin) and Zakowski v Regional Court in Szecin, Poland [2008] EWHC 1398 (Admin) as decisions concerning different issues or contexts.
3. Required particulars. A conviction warrant must contain sufficient information to enable the requested person sensibly to understand what he has been convicted and sentenced for and to consider possible bars to extradition. It will almost always need to state the number of offences and give some information about when and where they were committed and the person’s participation. The degree of particularity depends on the facts, and more complex offences may require more detail. There is no prescriptive formula. The court applied the contextual approach in Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland [2007] EWHC 3106 (Admin) and Owens v Court of First Instance Marbella, Spain [2009] EWHC 1243 (Admin).
4. Application. The warrant identified one offence, the period of offending, the city, the types of places from which goods were stolen, and whether the appellant acted alone or with others. Victim identities, addresses and the allocation of each act between the appellant and others were unnecessary. The possibility of a retrial did not make the appellant an accused person, since any retrial would concern the offence for which he stood convicted. The warrant adequately stated the particulars of conviction and complied with Part 1 of the Act.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: on 25 September 2009, Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham ordered the appellant’s extradition under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal was dismissed. The warrant complied with the requirements of Part 1 of the Act.