Larvin v Juzgado De Instruccion No 4 Court Of Fuengirola Malaga, Spain

An arrest warrant under Part 1 of the 2003 Act must give sufficiently particular information about the alleged offence. A broad description of criminal conduct is insufficient. The warrant must identify the alleged conduct, the time and place of the offence, and the relevant provision of the requesting territory’s law, with the degree of detail necessary to inform the person sought and, where relevant, permit the dual-criminality exercise. A warrant failing to meet those requirements is invalid and the extradition order must be quashed.

The appellant appealed against a decision of District Judge Evans ordering his extradition to Spain to stand trial on one offence described in a European Arrest Warrant. The challenge was brought on two substituted grounds: that the warrant failed to comply with section 2(4)(c) of the 2003 Act, and that the alleged conduct was not an extradition offence under section 64(2) or (3).

The warrant alleged that, since September 2007, the appellant had diverted third-party investment funds received by a company for personal or other interests. The central issue was whether that description supplied the particulars required by section 2(4)(c).

1. The appeal was allowed and the District Judge’s extradition order was quashed. A pure point of law concerning the validity of an arrest warrant may be raised on appeal where it was not identified below, provided that it does not depend on evidence. This was consistent with Hoholm v the Government of Norway.

2. Section 2(4)(c) requires particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence. Those particulars include the alleged conduct, the time and place of the alleged offence, and the relevant provision of the requesting territory’s law. The required detail depends on the nature of the offence. It must enable the person sought to understand the nature and extent of the allegations and, where dual criminality is involved, permit the necessary transposition exercise.

3. The court applied the guidance in Ektor v Netherlands and, more particularly, Von Der Pahlen v the Government of Austria. The warrant gave no information about the amount of money diverted, the number or identity of the persons affected, the investment arrangements, or the manner and destination of the alleged diversion. It therefore came nowhere near satisfying the required standard of particularity and was invalid.

4. The finding did not prevent the Spanish judicial authorities from issuing a fresh warrant which was properly particularised. The alternative argument under section 64(2) or (3) was not decided. The judge indicated that, had the warrant complied with section 2, the argument would probably have failed, but this was unnecessary to the result and had not been fully argued.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2012] EWHC 2811 (Admin) allowed the appeal and quashed the extradition order made by District Judge Evans on 8 May 2012.