Taylor v The Public Prosecutor's Office, Berlin, Germany

A European arrest warrant must provide sufficient particulars of the circumstances of each offence, including the alleged conduct, time and place, and the applicable law. It must also state the sentence or sentences which may be imposed for the relevant offence or offences. The court considers the validity of each offence separately where a warrant alleges multiple offences. The required detail is sufficient detail to inform the person sought of the nature and extent of the allegations and, where necessary, to permit the dual-criminality assessment. A warrant materially defective in those respects is invalid for the affected offences.

The appellant had been ordered by a district judge to be extradited to Germany under a European arrest warrant concerning 25 alleged sexual offences against a child. The warrant covered conduct allegedly committed in Germany and one alleged offence committed during a stay in England. The appellant challenged the warrant on the grounds that it failed to particularise the circumstances and misstated the maximum sentence for 23 offences. He also disputed whether the English offence satisfied the statutory requirements for extraterritorial jurisdiction. The appeal required the court to determine the validity of the warrant offence by offence.

1. Appeal allowed. The extradition order was quashed. A fresh warrant could be issued if the German authorities considered that appropriate.
2. Section 2(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 concerns the validity of the warrant. Applying Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid [2007] 2 AC 31, insufficient compliance with the statutory particulars renders the warrant defective and invalid.
3. The court applied the approach in Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland [2007] EWHC 3106. The warrant need not contain excessive detail, but it must give the person sought an adequate description of the offence and an idea of the nature and extent of the allegations. The detail required depends on the offence and must also permit any necessary transposition exercise.
4. The warrant did not identify which alleged forms of sexual conduct occurred at which address. That was a defect under section 2(4)(c). It also stated a maximum sentence of 15 years for offences 1 to 23, although the correct maximum was 10 years. That was a defect under section 2(4)(d). Those 23 warrants were therefore invalid from the outset.
5. The multiple-offence provisions permitted the offences to be considered separately. The 15-year sentence was correct for offences 24 and 25, but offence 24 remained defective because the place and, potentially, the time of the alleged conduct were insufficiently identified.
6. Offence 25 was allegedly committed in England. Although the conduct was punishable in Germany, the requirements of section 64(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 were not satisfied. Section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 1997 was not properly construed as conferring jurisdiction merely because the appellant had been resident in Germany when that section came into force, while no longer being resident there when the offence was committed.
7. The court did not decide the separate issue concerning whether the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office was a proper judicial authority. That issue might be considered by the Supreme Court.

Costs were ordered out of central funds under section 62(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was allowed and the order was quashed.
• District Judge Purdy: On 14 September 2011, ordered extradition to Germany under the European arrest warrant.