Woodbridge v The Head Attorney General of the District of Moenchengladbach, Germany

For an accusation European Arrest Warrant, the warrant must be read as a whole and in a cosmopolitan sense. It must indicate unequivocally that surrender is sought for prosecution. Extrinsic evidence is relevant only where the warrant is equivocal. Under section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, a decision to charge or try may be informal, conditional or subject to later procedural steps. Article 8 requires a fact-sensitive balance between family life and the weighty public interest in extradition. There is no exceptionality test, but family consequences ordinarily must be exceptionally severe before they outweigh that public interest. The gravity of the alleged offences, delay, the age and dependency of children, and the likely impact of extradition are material considerations.

The appellant challenged an order by District Judge Snow for his extradition to Germany under a European Arrest Warrant alleging eighteen fraud offences and an offence of failing to file for bankruptcy. The appeal concerned whether the warrant was issued for prosecution, whether extradition was barred by the absence of a prosecution decision under section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, whether the appellant’s health engaged section 25, and whether extradition would breach Article 8. During the appeal, the appellant’s wife underwent extensive cancer treatment and the family circumstances changed materially. The central issues were whether those matters required discharge or adjournment, and whether the interference with family life was disproportionate.

1. Grounds 1 and 2 dismissed. The EAW was issued for the purpose of prosecution. Applying Hoholm v Norway, Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas, Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court, Hungary and Ali v Public Prosecutor of Bavaria, Germany, the warrant was to be construed as a whole and in a cosmopolitan sense. Its terms unequivocally described an accusation warrant, and there was no proper basis for treating it as a warrant for questioning only.

2. The interpretation of section 12A in Puceviciene v Lithuanian Judicial Authority; Conrath v German Judicial Authority; Savov v Czech Judicial Authority was decisive. A decision to charge or try need not comply with a particular formality. It may be conditional or subject to review and may precede completion of formal steps such as interview. The indictment and contents of this EAW showed that decisions to charge and try had been made.

3. Section 25 required consideration of reliable, up-to-date evidence. The appellant’s health, even allowing for further investigations and possible treatment, did not make extradition unjust or oppressive, and appropriate treatment would be available in Germany. A further adjournment was unnecessary.

4. Under Article 8, the court had to balance the interference with the private and family lives of the appellant, his wife and their children against the constant and weighty public interest in extradition. There was no exceptionality test. The alleged offending was substantially more serious than that in F-K v Polish Judicial Authority, there was no comparable delay, and the children were older and less dependent. The consequences, though distressing and serious, were not exceptionally severe. Extradition was proportionate.

5. The appeal was dismissed. The court accepted that changed circumstances could permit a later EAW, consistently with Auzins v Latvia, but the present case should be determined on its merits rather than adjourned further.

• District Judge Snow: ordered extradition on 2 July 2015, finding that the EAW complied with the Extradition Act 2003, that section 12A did not bar extradition, and that neither Article 8 nor section 25 prevented surrender.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and upheld the extradition order.