Muldoon v Malaga Provincial High Court, Spain

An accusation European Arrest Warrant must contain particulars sufficient to assess the alleged conduct, the requested person’s participation, and the seriousness of the offence. The required level of detail depends on the circumstances. Where extradition involves balancing oppression against the public interest under Extradition Act 2003, s 14, or proportionality under article 8, the particulars must enable those assessments to be made. Relevant matters may include the number of victims, the duration and value of the alleged fraud, and the requested person’s role. If the warrant does not provide adequate particulars, it is invalid and the requested person must be discharged.

This was an appeal, with permission, against a District Judge’s order of 21 June 2016 requiring the appellant’s extradition to Spain under an accusation European Arrest Warrant. The warrant alleged a continuing time-share resale fraud beginning in 2000, conducted through companies in the Costa del Sol, but gave little detail of the appellant’s individual conduct, the duration and value of the fraud, or the number of affected persons.

The appeal challenged the adequacy of the warrant under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, oppression arising from delay under section 14, and proportionality under article 8. The central issue was whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars to permit the necessary legal assessments.

1. Appeal allowed. The European Arrest Warrant was declared invalid and the appellant was ordered to be discharged.
2. Under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, the warrant must contain particulars of the circumstances of the alleged offence, including the conduct, time and place, and the relevant law. The required level of particularity depends on the circumstances. It must provide enough information to enable any available bar to extradition to be considered, and to assess framework-list classification and dual criminality where relevant. The approach stated by Lloyd-Jones LJ in King v Public Prosecutors of Villefranche sur Saone, France [2015] EWHC 3670 (Admin) was accepted.
3. The warrant did not adequately identify the seriousness of the allegation or the appellant’s alleged participation. It did not state the number or identity of the alleged victims, the period over which the continuing offence occurred, the value of the alleged fraud, or the appellant’s role within the alleged conspiracy.
4. Those deficiencies were material. The seriousness of the alleged offence was relevant both to the section 14 assessment and to the article 8 proportionality assessment. The previous convictions and sentences of alleged co-offenders also demonstrated the importance of identifying the appellant’s individual conduct.
5. Because the warrant was invalid, it was unnecessary and inappropriate to determine the section 14 and article 8 grounds, which assumed a valid warrant. The court nevertheless observed that the unexplained delay, the treatment of co-offenders, and the false sense of security created by the authorities appeared to give those grounds considerable force.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal from the District Judge’s decision of 21 June 2016, and pursuant to permission granted by Collins J on 14 October 2016, the European Arrest Warrant was declared invalid and the appellant was discharged.