Vice Prosecutor, Magistrate of the Judicial Order, France v Charbit

A European Arrest Warrant must contain the required particulars in the prescribed standard form. The circumstances of the alleged offending required by section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 must appear in the body of the warrant. An annex cannot supply deficiencies in Box E, even where it is transmitted with the warrant in the same electronic document and is clearly cross-referenced. This strict approach reflects the Framework Decision’s requirements, the need for uniformity and mutual trust between Member States, and the simplified and efficient nature of the European Arrest Warrant system.

The Vice Prosecutor appealed against the decision of Chief Magistrate Riddle at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 2 June 2014. The Chief Magistrate held that a European Arrest Warrant seeking the respondent’s extradition to France was invalid because Box E did not sufficiently particularise the alleged fraud under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. He also held, following Pinnick v Spain, that the annexed particulars could not be considered.

The issues were whether the annex formed part of the warrant and whether the warrant, including the annex, disclosed an extradition offence under section 10 of the Act.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant did not comply with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. It was therefore not a European Arrest Warrant and the court lacked jurisdiction to deal with it.
2. The practical concerns identified in Pinnick v Spain were less forceful where the warrant and annex arrived as one PDF. Nevertheless, the electronic form of transmission did not determine the legal issue. There was no evidence that the warrant had been certified in PDF form, and the annex pages were not numbered.
3. The form prescribed by the Framework Decision is expandable. The European Arrest Warrant Handbook contemplated expanding Box E where necessary. The character limit associated with the SIRENE system was not absolute, and there was no evidence that it applied in this case.
4. Reading the Extradition Act 2003 against the Framework Decision and the policy of a swift, efficient and uniform extradition system, the court held that no annex was permitted to supply the required particulars. Article 8 of the Framework Decision and section 2 of the Act required strict adherence to the standard form. Box E had to contain a succinct statement of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the conduct, time and place.
5. The warrant’s Box E particulars were insufficient without the annex. The Chief Magistrate’s analysis was correct, and the appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the decision of Chief Magistrate Riddle dated 2 June 2014 was dismissed. The court held that the European Arrest Warrant was invalid under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The Chief Magistrate held that the warrant did not sufficiently particularise the alleged offence and that the annex could not remedy the defect.