Jama v Senior Public Prosecutor, Gera, Germany

For framework-list offences under section 64(2) of the Extradition Act 2003, the offence is defined by the law of the issuing state. The expression “illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances” is not implicitly confined by the schedules or definitions in the 1988 Convention. An offence involving trafficking in khat may therefore fall within the framework list, even though khat itself is not scheduled, where the conduct concerns naturally occurring cathinone. An executing court should ordinarily accept the issuing state’s certification, but may reject it where the alleged conduct is plainly incapable of falling within the certified category. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed against an order of District Judge Zani in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Germany under a European arrest warrant. He was wanted to face three charges concerning trafficking in khat, said to contain cathinone.

The appellant argued that the offences were outside the framework-list category of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances because khat was not listed in the relevant United Nations conventions. The respondent relied primarily on section 64(2) of the Extradition Act 2003, and alternatively on section 64(3), which requires double criminality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The European arrest warrant satisfied section 64(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.

2. The framework-list categories in Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision are expressed in general terms. Subject to categories containing their own express limitations, the court should be cautious about implying restrictions by reference to international instruments. The Framework Decision leaves the definition of the offences to the law of the issuing Member State, as explained in Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad Case C-303/05.

3. The executing court should ordinarily accept the requesting state’s classification of an offence. It may decline to accept the certification where the conduct is plainly incapable of falling within the certified framework category. The present offences were capable of constituting illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, notwithstanding that khat itself was not scheduled under the 1988 Convention.

4. In any event, the warrant referred to cathinone, which was listed in Schedule I to the 1971 Convention. The court rejected the submission that the reference to cathinone excluded its natural occurrence within the khat plant. The conventions supplied no basis for limiting the reference to synthetic or extracted cathinone. Article 3(11) of the 1988 Convention reserved the description of offences to domestic law.

5. The alternative section 64(3) argument was unnecessary to the result and was rejected. Khat plants which had merely been picked and bundled were not a “preparation or other product” containing cathinone for the purposes of paragraph 4 of Part III of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order dismissed, holding that the European arrest warrant satisfied section 64(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered extradition on 14 June 2013.