Meizoso -Gonzalez, R (On the Application Of) v Juzgado De Instruccion Cinco De Palma De Mallorca, Spain

For a European Arrest Warrant, the court must determine the purpose of extradition by reading the warrant as a whole. An unequivocal statement that surrender is sought for criminal prosecution will ordinarily be decisive. References to investigation, questioning or continuing inquiries do not necessarily make the purpose equivocal, since those matters may form part of the prosecutorial process in the requesting state.

Extrinsic factual or expert evidence should be considered only where the warrant is genuinely ambiguous, and then only as a last resort. A sufficiently particular description of psychological ill-treatment, insults, threats, intimidation and coercion may amount to harassment within section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The claimant appealed against an order made by District Judge Zani on 3 June 2010 ordering his extradition to Spain under a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Juzgado de Instruccion Cinco de Palma de Mallorca.

The warrant stated that it sought arrest and surrender for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution. It described alleged fraud and an offence against moral integrity, and referred to Spanish preliminary inquiry proceedings known as diligencias previas. The claimant argued that the warrant was in truth directed only to investigation, rather than prosecution, and that the description of the second offence lacked sufficient particularity.

1. Purpose of the warrant. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 2(3)(a) and (b) of the Extradition Act 2003, the court had to decide whether the warrant stated that the claimant was accused of specified offences and that surrender was sought for prosecution. The warrant had to be read as a whole.
2. Extrinsic material. The statement on the face of the warrant was unequivocal, apart from the possible significance of the untranslated reference to diligencias previas. It was therefore proper to obtain limited material to determine whether that phrase created ambiguity. However, the court was not entitled to investigate the requesting authority’s purpose where the warrant itself was clear. Extrinsic factual or expert evidence remained a last resort.
3. Investigation and prosecution. The Spanish judicial authority explained that investigation, questioning and the oral hearing formed parts of the criminal proceedings and that the warrant was issued to secure the claimant’s presence for prosecution. In the context of mutual trust between judicial authorities, those express explanations had to be respected. Continuing investigation did not, without more, convert a prosecution warrant into an investigation-only warrant.
4. Second offence. The description of psychological ill-treatment, insults, threats, intimidation and coercion was sufficiently particular to fall within harassment contrary to section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
5. A detailed assessment of costs was ordered.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against District Judge Zani’s extradition order of 3 June 2010 was dismissed. A detailed assessment of costs was ordered.