Kane, R (on the application of) v Trial Court No 5 Marbella, Spain

For an extradition appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the statutory seven-day period for giving notice cannot be shortened by court-office hours or procedural rules. Filing and service must both occur within the period, but service may precede filing. A notice need not bear a court stamp or appeal number when served, provided it identifies the appeal and is subsequently filed.

A Part 1 warrant must contain sufficient particulars of the requested person’s alleged conduct, the time and place of the offence, and the relevant law. The assessment is practical and informed by common sense, while recognising that liberty is at stake. Extraneous information cannot supplement a defective warrant for the purposes of section 2(4)(c), although it may be relevant to transposition.

The appellant appealed against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Spain to face an allegation of involvement in an international hashish-trafficking operation.

The respondent challenged the Administrative Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that notice of appeal had not been given in accordance with section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant also argued that the European arrest warrant failed to comply with section 2(4)(c), because it did not adequately identify his conduct, the time and place of the offence, or the nature of the allegation.

The central questions were whether service before filing was sufficient and whether the warrant contained the particulars required by section 2(4)(c).

1. The jurisdiction objection failed. Section 26(4) requires both filing and service within seven days, but the statute gives the appellant the full statutory period. Filing means delivery to the Court Office, including by fax or email, and does not depend on administrative processing or stamping. Service may therefore precede filing, provided the notice served is the relevant notice of appeal. The contrary approach in Government of Poland v Walerianczyk [2010] EWHC 2149 Admin was not followed because it would shorten the statutory period and encourage satellite litigation.

2. The court applied Mucelli v Government of Albania [2009] 1 WLR 276: “given” requires filing and service, and the court cannot use procedural rules to cut down the statutory period. The court also applied Van Aken v Camden London Borough Council [2003] 1 WLR 684, holding that filing is a unilateral act of delivery to the Court Office. The later stamped first page would in any event have constituted sufficient service.

3. The warrant complied with section 2(4)(c). The court adopted the approach in Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid [2007] 2 AC 31: the statutory requirements are mandatory and the warrant must stand on its own face. Applying the guidance in Ektor v Netherlands [2007] EWHC 3106, the warrant gave sufficient information about the alleged offence and the appellant’s role.

4. The references to two imprisoned British citizens did not create material uncertainty, since they plainly did not describe the appellant. The expression “would be in charge” appropriately described his proposed role in receiving the drugs and did not cast doubt on his alleged involvement. The time and place were sufficiently stated in the context of an alleged agreement or conspiracy conducted from Spain. Further information could not cure a defective warrant, but was relevant to transposition, which was conceded to be satisfied.

5. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant’s costs were subject to detailed assessment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the district judge’s extradition order was dismissed. The court held that it had jurisdiction and that the warrant complied with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.