Dougui v Magistrates Court of Toulouse France

In an extradition case, a European arrest warrant need not expressly state the precise procedural stage reached in the requesting state where the warrant, read as a whole, clearly shows that the person is sought for prosecution rather than investigation. Further explanation is required only where the warrant raises a real question about that status. The particulars of an alleged conspiracy must also be assessed by reading the warrant as a whole. If the warrant clearly limits the conspiracy to identified substantive offences, the absence of a separate express statement to that effect does not make it defective. Any broader prosecution on return would breach specialty.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his return to France to face three armed robbery charges and one conspiracy charge.

He argued that the warrant did not establish that the French proceedings had reached the accusation stage rather than remaining investigative, and that the conspiracy charge lacked sufficient particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Act. The central issues were whether the warrant sufficiently identified an accusation case and whether, read as a whole, it confined the alleged conspiracy to the three armed robberies.

1. Accusation or investigation. The warrant was issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution. Although it did not delete the standard alternative wording identifying whether the case concerned accusation or conviction, the surrounding description showed that the issuing judicial authority considered there to be sufficient evidence to put the claimant on trial.

2. The observations in Vey v The Office of the Public Prosecutor of the County Court of Montluçon, France [2006] EWHC 760 (Admin) did not establish a requirement that every warrant expressly state the precise procedural stage reached. Vey turned on its own facts, where the warrant raised a real question whether the requested person was an accused person or merely a suspect. In the present case, the description of the claimant as the instigator, mastermind, supplier of weapons, organiser and co-perpetrator made the position clear. The first ground therefore failed.

3. Particulars of conspiracy. The approach in Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland [2007] EWHC 3106 (Admin) was applied. The requested person must know the offence alleged and have an idea of the nature and extent of the allegations. The amount of detail depends on the offence, and the warrant must be considered as a whole.

4. Although it would have been preferable to state expressly that the conspiracy concerned armed robberies, the warrant clearly linked the conspiracy to the three armed robberies set out as the substantive offences. It could not support prosecution for any wider conspiracy. That limitation applied as a matter of specialty.

5. The appeal was dismissed. The dismissal was deferred for 14 days to allow investigation of newly raised alleged threats to the claimant’s life or limb and any possible further human-rights ground. If no grounds were lodged, or the claimant’s representatives concluded there was no realistic basis for them, the dismissal would take effect in accordance with the court’s directions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the District Judge’s order dated 31 December 2012. The appeal was dismissed, subject to a 14-day deferral concerning newly raised alleged threats.