King v Public Prosecutors of Villefranche Sur Saone France

A conviction European arrest warrant must contain sufficient particulars of the circumstances of the offence to permit consideration of any mandatory or optional bar to extradition and, where relevant, dual criminality. Extradition Act 2003 section 2 must be interpreted consistently with article 8 of the Framework Decision. In principle, the required information is not less because the warrant follows a conviction rather than an accusation.

The particulars need not be elaborate. They must enable the requested person and executing court to identify the conduct relied upon and raise any available bar or defence. An inaccuracy does not invalidate a warrant where it is immaterial or is corrected by reliable further information before extradition is decided.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 from District Judge Zani’s order of 21 July 2015 for his extradition to France under a European arrest warrant. He had been convicted in France of three offences concerning the laundering and concealment of money said to be proceeds of drug trafficking, and a failure to declare cash imported into France.

Permission was limited to whether the warrant failed to comply with section 2(6)(b) because its particulars were insufficient. The warrant also inaccurately stated that the appellant’s hands had tested positive for cocaine. The central issues were the degree of particularity required in a conviction warrant, the effect of that inaccuracy, and whether the offences satisfied dual criminality.

1. The appeal was dismissed, subject to a direction that the third offence, failure to declare the importation of cash into France, could not be relied on in France because it did not satisfy dual criminality.

2. Section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 had to be construed purposively and consistently with article 8 of the Council Framework Decision. Article 8 did not distinguish accusation from conviction warrants. Accordingly, section 2(6)(b), requiring particulars of the conviction, required sufficient particulars of the circumstances of the offending. The information had to permit the executing authority and requested person to assess any mandatory or optional bar, the propriety of any framework-list classification, and dual criminality where required.

3. The court did not accept Sandi v Romania’s reasoning that conviction warrants required a lower level of factual particularity than accusation warrants. The level of detail remained fact-sensitive. It need not be extensive if it sufficiently identified the relevant conduct, time, place and participation for the statutory purposes. This warrant met that standard, even if treated as an accusation warrant. It sufficiently identified the money as proceeds of drug trafficking and the appellant’s role in laundering and concealing it.

4. The inaccurate cocaine-testing statement was a careless but immaterial error. Following Zakrzewski v District Court in Torun, Poland, a warrant’s validity turns on whether it contains the prescribed particulars, rather than their truth. Further information could correct an error before the extradition decision. The corrected information established a proper basis for extradition and disclosed neither prejudice nor abuse of process.

5. The laundering conduct occurred in part in the United Kingdom because the money was exported from there. Article 4(7)(a) and section 65 consequently required dual criminality to be considered. Under the United Kingdom law applicable in February 1996, the first two offences met that test because the money was necessarily alleged to be drug-trafficking proceeds. The cash-declaration offence did not.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed, subject to a direction excluding reliance in France on the third offence.
2. District Judge: On 21 July 2015 District Judge Zani ordered the appellant’s extradition to France under the European arrest warrant.