Howell v Deputy Attorney General Court of Appeal of Douai France

For a conviction European Arrest Warrant, Extradition Act 2003, section 2(6)(b) requires particulars sufficiently indicative of the offences of conviction. Dates of the offences and detailed trial information are not necessarily required. Where the designated authority has certified that the issuing authority has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the relevant territory, the court will not go behind that certificate without evidence undermining it. Prosecutors within the French judicial system may constitute competent judicial authorities. Article 8 family-life objections to extradition require exceptionally compelling circumstances. Uncertainty about the procedure for seeking a prisoner transfer, without evidence that transfer will be refused, does not meet that high threshold.

The claimant appealed against an order of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his surrender to France under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought his surrender to serve the balance of a sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal of Douai for four drug-trafficking offences.

The appeal raised whether the warrant was issued by a competent judicial authority, whether it contained sufficient particulars of the convictions under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether surrender would disproportionately interfere with family life under Article 8 of the Convention and section 21 of the Act.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant was a valid conviction European Arrest Warrant and the claimant’s Article 8 objection did not justify refusing surrender.

2. The Framework Decision left each Member State to determine, under its own law, which authority was competent to issue a European Arrest Warrant. Section 2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 permitted the designated authority to certify that the issuing authority had the function of issuing arrest warrants in the relevant category 1 territory. In the absence of evidence challenging the French position, the court would not go behind SOCA’s certificate.

3. French prosecutors were part of the French judicial system. Both prosecuting and sitting magistrates exercised judicial functions, although their functions differed. The Deputy Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Douai was therefore properly treated as a judicial authority for the purposes of the Act.

4. For a conviction warrant, section 2(6)(b) required particulars sufficiently indicative of the offences of which the person had been convicted. It did not necessarily require the dates of the offences, detailed particulars of the trial, or every detail of the convictions. The descriptions in box (e), read with the information in box (f), adequately identified the four offences and the conviction.

5. The Article 8 challenge failed. Applying the high threshold identified in Norris v United States [2010] 2 AC 487, only exceptionally compelling circumstances, alone or in combination, could make interference with family life disproportionate to the extradition objective. The evidence showed uncertainty about which authority should initiate a possible transfer under the relevant arrangements. It did not show that the United Kingdom authorities refused a transfer or that the French authorities would refuse to consider one. The circumstances were therefore not exceptionally compelling.

Mr Justice Maddison agreed with each conclusion and joined in dismissing the appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the order of District Judge Zani in the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 14 November 2011.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: ordered surrender to France under the conviction European Arrest Warrant.