Biritwum v District Public Prosecutors Office in Zwolle-Lelystad Netherlands

For a conviction European Arrest Warrant, the particulars must enable the requested person to understand the conviction and sentence and to consider possible bars to extradition. The warrant must be read as a whole, including the applicable offence provision. Where the warrant concerns a non-framework offence, dual criminality must be established to the criminal standard. The court may consider further information certified by the requesting authority when determining that issue. Extradition may remain proportionate despite substantial disruption to family life where the offence is serious, a custodial sentence remains to be served, and the requested person is a fugitive.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to the Netherlands under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned a 327-day sentence for aiding and abetting the illegal entry of two persons into the Netherlands. The issues were whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, whether dual criminality was established, and whether extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8.

The District Judge had found the warrant valid, dual criminality established and extradition proportionate, having considered the appellant’s family circumstances, children and time already spent on remand.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant satisfied section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003. The particulars of conviction need not reproduce the particulars required for an accusation warrant, but must provide enough information for the requested person to understand the conviction and sentence and to consider whether any bar to extradition may apply. The warrant was to be read as a whole. Its description, classification and reference to the applicable Netherlands provision made clear that the allegation was people smuggling, rather than an illegality concerning the vehicle or transported goods. Sandi v the Craiova Court of Romania [2009] EWHC 3079 (Admin) was applied.
2. Because no framework offence was specified, the requesting authority had to establish that the conduct alleged constituted an offence under English law, to the criminal standard. The warrant supported the only realistic inference that the persons smuggled were non-EU nationals, so section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 could establish dual criminality.
3. Further information from the requesting authority could be considered for this purpose. Dabbas v the High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6 recognised that further information could be received under sections 10 and 65. Government of United States v Shlesinger [2013] EWHC 2671 (Admin) concerned whether the requested person could contradict the warrant with further information and did not overrule Dabbas. Zakrzewski v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] UKSC 2 and [2013] 1 WLR 324 was read consistently with Dabbas.
4. Extradition was proportionate under Article 8. The offence was serious, merited custody, and the appellant remained a fugitive. The children’s welfare was a primary consideration, but the family hardship caused by a limited period of extradition did not outweigh the public interest in requiring the appellant to serve the sentence imposed.

High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order. The judgment under appeal was not given a citation in the judgment.