Patel & Ors v Public Prosecutor's Office of Nurnberg-Furth Germany

Part 1 extradition warrants must provide enough information for the requested person to understand, with reasonable certainty, the substance of the allegations, including what is alleged, when and where it occurred and, where relevant, why the person is said to have had the necessary knowledge.

A warrant is not inadequate merely because its formatting is confusing, provided the allegations can be aligned with the offences. The warrant need not particularise the evidence or separately identify the alleged participation in every substantive offence where the overall allegation of control and participation is clear. The requested state should not assess the merits of the evidence unless the extradition process is alleged to be abused. Serious allegations may outweigh substantial interference with private and family life under Article 8.

The three claimants appealed against District Judge Goldspring's decision at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 11 July 2014 ordering their extradition to Germany under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.

The European arrest warrants alleged participation in a carousel VAT fraud involving German and Swedish companies. The claimants argued that the warrants failed to provide adequate particulars under section 2(4)(c), including particulars of the nine alleged offences and each claimant's participation in them. Mr Patel additionally argued that extradition would breach his Convention rights because of the impact on his business and family, and because doubts had arisen about the evidence.

The central issues were whether the warrants contained sufficient particulars and whether Mr Patel's extradition remained proportionate under Article 8.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The court declined to postpone the operation of the warrants.
2. Under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, the warrant must contain sufficient information to enable the requested person to understand with reasonable certainty what he is alleged to have done, when and where, and, where necessary, why he is said to possess the required knowledge. The court applied the principles stated in Sanjay Dhar v National Office of the Public Prosecution Service, The Netherlands [2010] EWHC 697 (Admin) and the observations concerning vague allegations in Kopycki v Poland [2012] EWHC 744 (Admin).
3. The warrants, read sequentially, contained sufficient particulars of the nine substantive offences. The District Judge had made an error in describing the first five offences as failures to submit returns after returns had been issued, but the warrants themselves identified the relevant failures during January to May 2011. Confusing presentation did not make the particulars inadequate.
4. It was unnecessary on these facts to identify the appellants' participation separately in relation to every offence. The allegation was that they manipulated the companies through a criminal agreement, with specified roles in controlling the operation, planning transactions, supplying electricity and creating false invoice chains. The warrant gave the time and place of the relevant acts or omissions and clearly distinguished alleged conduct from the evidence intended to prove it.
5. It was not the function of the requested state or the extradition court to examine the merits or strength of the evidence unless abuse of process was alleged. The newly disclosed material and proposed prosecutorial review therefore did not alter the proportionality assessment or justify an adjournment.
6. The interference with Mr Patel's private and family life was substantial, but the public interest in extradition to face allegations of serious crime outweighed it. Extradition was proportionate under Article 8.

• Westminster Magistrates' Court: District Judge Goldspring ordered the claimants' extradition to Germany on 11 July 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed all three appeals and declined to postpone the operation of the warrants.