Alexander v The Public Prosecutor's Office, Marseille District Court of First Instance, France

A deficient European arrest warrant may be supplemented by further information to establish a lawful basis for extradition. A court must interpret the Extradition Act 2003, so far as possible, consistently with the Framework Decision. Missing required particulars may therefore be supplied where the warrant is in the prescribed form, addresses the statutory information, and contains a lacuna rather than a wholesale failure to provide particulars.

The issuing state remains principally responsible for providing the information. The requested person should identify any deficiency promptly. Particulars are sufficient if, read realistically, they enable the person to understand the substance of the allegations and to raise applicable bars to extradition.

These conjoined statutory appeals concerned accusation European arrest warrants issued by French and Italian judicial authorities. The appellants contended that their warrants lacked particulars required by section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, including particulars of conduct, time, and the maximum sentence for each offence.

In the first appeal, the French authority supplied letters giving additional particulars of alleged arms offences. In the second, the Italian authority supplied information identifying the maximum sentence for an offence for which the warrant had stated no separate maximum. The central issue was whether, and to what extent, supplementary information could validate or cure a defect in an accusation warrant.

1. Appeals dismissed. The Court held that the former strict approach, under which a warrant lacking a mandatory statutory particular could not be supplemented by extraneous material, no longer governed. In the light of Criminal proceedings against Bob-Dogi [2016] 1 WLR 4583 and Goluchowski v District Court in Elblag, Poland [2016] 1 WLR 2665, section 2 and section 202 of the Extradition Act 2003 had to permit investigation and consideration of supplementary information analogous to that contemplated by article 15(2) of the Framework Decision.
2. The Court rejected a distinction between formal and substantive omissions. Required information, including dates, particulars of conduct and maximum sentences, may be supplied by further information. Extradition cannot be ordered if the information is not supplied. However, the warrant must be in the prescribed form, presented as an EAW, and must set out to address the statutory requirements. Article 15(2) permits supplementary information and the filling of lacunae; it does not require the executing court to construct a case from a wholly deficient document.
3. The issuing judicial authority bears the principal responsibility for supplying the information. Requested persons should raise deficiencies at an early stage. The Court gave practical guidance on early case management, including prompt requests for supplementary information and tight time limits.
4. The French warrant sufficiently particularised offences 1 to 8 when read realistically. The warrants and further letters together sufficiently particularised the conspiracy allegation and the arms-depot allegation. It was appropriate to admit the later French information because the section 2 point had not been raised below and the material addressed the alleged lacunae.
5. The alleged arms offences were framework-list offences and therefore extradition offences under section 64(5). In any event, on the combined information, the conduct satisfied section 64(3). The Italian supplementary information could both identify which offence the stated maximum sentence concerned and fill the omission of the maximum sentence for the other offence. Each warrant was consequently a valid Part 1 warrant.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed both statutory appeals from extradition orders.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Goldspring ordered Sean Alexander’s extradition on offences 1 to 9 in the first warrant and on the second warrant. District Judge Ikram ordered Gianfranco Di Benedetto’s extradition.