Tudor v United Arab Emirates

Section 84 of the Extradition Act 2003 provides a specific code for admitting documentary statements in extradition proceedings. The relevant question is whether the maker’s direct oral evidence would have been admissible at the hypothetical summary trial, not whether the maker will actually attend the eventual trial abroad. A statement need not follow the formal domestic witness-statement form. The court must also consider statutory fairness factors, including whether the requested person could controvert the statement. Sufficiency must be assessed by considering the evidence as a whole.

The United Arab Emirates sought the extradition of a Romanian national for a robbery in Dubai. As the UAE was a Part 2 territory subject to the prima facie case requirement, the district judge considered signed interview records and found a case to answer under section 84 of the Extradition Act 2003.

The claimant appealed, arguing that the records were not statements within section 84(2), that evidence from a former co-accused was inadmissible, and that the evidence was insufficient because the witness might not attend any eventual trial.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The signed interview records were statements for the purposes of section 84(2). The Act did not require them to adopt the precise form of domestic witness statements. They contained factual averments, fell within section 84(2)(a), and were signed in the prosecutor’s presence.
2. Section 84(2)(b) required consideration of whether direct oral evidence by the maker would have been admissible at the hypothetical summary trial. The relevant issue was competency. The witness had been sentenced by that stage and was competent to give evidence. His evidence concerning the claimant’s confession would have been admissible under the common-law exception to the hearsay rule preserved by section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
3. The court was not required to speculate whether the witness would attend the eventual trial in the UAE. Possible unfairness arising from non-attendance could be considered under section 84(3)(e). The district judge was entitled to conclude that exclusion of the statement was not required in the interests of justice.
4. The evidence had to be assessed as a whole. The victim’s account, the evidence of the confession, and evidence that other witnesses possessed a substantial quantity of the stolen rings shortly after the robbery established a case to answer. The claimant’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

The judgment records an appeal from the district judge’s finding that there was a case to answer. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.