Sinani v Norway

For the purposes of Extradition Act 2003, section 137(2)(c) is satisfied where the extradition request establishes that the specified conduct falls within category 2 territory, is criminal in the United Kingdom and is punishable by at least 12 months’ imprisonment, and is expressly stated to be punishable in the requesting state. The court need not examine the detailed provisions of foreign criminal law or apply an offence test where the request is clear and its supporting material is not contradictory. A rigorous approach remains necessary, but it does not require proof beyond those statutory requirements.

The appellant appealed under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a decision sending his case to the Secretary of State for extradition to Norway. The substantive issue arose from an earlier ruling that the request specified extradition offences. The appellant argued that the request and supporting material failed to establish that the narcotic substances were unlawful under Norwegian law at the relevant time and also challenged document authentication under section 202. The central question was whether the material satisfied section 137(2)(c).

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was correct to rule that the request specified extradition offences.
2. The request, read alone or with the later documents, established three matters required by section 137(2)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003: the conduct was within category 2 territory; it was criminal in the United Kingdom and punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more; and it was expressly stated to be punishable in Norway.
3. The court accepted that a rigorous approach is required at this elementary stage. That principle, illustrated by Bentley [2005] EWHC 1078 (Admin) and endorsed in Welsh v Secretary of State [2007] 1 WLR 1281 and Hasmi v United States of America [2007] EWHC 564 (Admin), did not require the court to presume a critical fact which had been contradicted. Here, unlike in Bentley, none of the legal material contradicted the statements in the request.
4. The court considered that Norris v United States [2008] 1 AC 920 might have wider application than section 137(2)(b), but it was unnecessary to decide that issue. Requiring further examination of foreign law would come close to applying the offence test, which the courts had eschewed.
5. The objection under section 202 was rejected. The information in the two letters satisfied the statutory authentication conditions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed. The ruling that the request specified extradition offences was upheld.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Riddle sent the case to the Secretary of State for extradition to Norway. District Judge Purdy had earlier ruled that the request specified extradition offences.