Harmatos v King's Prosecutor in Dendermond, Belgium

In extradition proceedings under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, the executing court should recognise the requesting state’s designation of its judicial authority and should not investigate whether that authority satisfies domestic conceptions of a judicial body, absent proper evidence of invalidity. A warrant containing an aggregate sentence for multiple offences may satisfy the statutory requirement for particulars of sentence. Where one offence is not extraditable, the court need not disaggregate the aggregate sentence when applying the four-month threshold to the remaining conduct, provided the statutory requirements, including double criminality, are otherwise met. The court must proceed through the Act in its prescribed sequence.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Evans’s order for his extradition to Belgium to serve an aggregate three-year sentence imposed in his absence. The District Judge discharged him in respect of one offence which failed the double-criminality requirement, but ordered extradition for the remaining offences.

The claimant argued that the warrant was invalid because it had been issued by a prosecution authority rather than a judicial authority, and that the aggregate sentence was insufficiently particularised after one offence had been excluded. The central issues were the validity of the warrant and the application of the statutory extradition-offence tests to multiple offences.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The court constituted itself as the Administrative Court to hear the challenge to SOCA’s certificate. The Framework Decision left each Member State to designate its competent judicial authority. Following Enander v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton, the Swedish National Police Board [2005] EWHC 3036 (Admin), it was inappropriate for the executing court to investigate whether the requesting authority met criteria ordinarily associated with a judicial body in the United Kingdom. The claimant produced no evidence that the Belgian authority lacked competence. An inference from its title was insufficient. Permission for judicial review was refused.
2. Ground 2 dismissed. The court adopted the methodical sequence required by Part 1. Validity under section 2 had to be considered before the conditions in section 65, including double criminality. As modified by the Multiple Offences Order, section 2(6)(e) required particulars of the sentence imposed in respect of the offences. The aggregate three-year sentence satisfied that requirement and did not invalidate the warrant.
3. For section 10 and section 65(3), it was unnecessary to disaggregate the aggregate sentence and attribute portions to individual offences. The court agreed with Kucera v District Court of Karvina, Czech Republic [2008] EWHC 414 (Admin) and Zboinski v Circuit Law Court in Swidnica, Poland [2010] EWHC 558 (Admin), and preferred them to Wiercinski v Second Division of the Criminal Circuit in Olsztyn, Poland [2008] EWHC 200 (Admin). The aggregate sentence exceeded four months, and the remaining conduct satisfied double criminality.
4. The appeal against the order made on 17 February 2011 was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Harmatos v King's Prosecutor in Dendermond, Belgium [2011] EWHC 1598 (Admin) dismissed the appeal.
• Westminster Magistrates' Court: District Judge Evans ordered extradition to Belgium in respect of the specified offences, except FACT A, for which the claimant was discharged because the conduct did not satisfy double criminality.