FK v Stuttgart State Prosecutor's Office, Germany

On an extradition appeal, the High Court retains its inherent procedural jurisdiction to request clarification and admit further evidence from a respondent where this is in the interests of justice. The statutory restrictions on fresh evidence concern a party seeking to overturn the district judge’s decision; they do not prevent a respondent from supporting it.

An accusation European Arrest Warrant need not provide exhaustive detail. It must nevertheless identify each offence and sufficiently describe the alleged conduct, time and place to enable the requested person to understand the allegations, the court to assess dual criminality, and any extradition bar to be considered. A detailed allegation of a planned Ponzi scheme met those requirements and disclosed fraud under Fraud Act 2006.

The passage-of-time and article 8 bars were not established.

The appellant challenged an order of District Judge Snow for his extradition to Germany under an accusation European Arrest Warrant. The warrant alleged 24 offences arising from an investment scheme in which German investors were induced to provide funds that were never invested as represented. The District Judge discharged the appellant on two separate charges but ordered surrender on the remaining charges.

The appellant appealed on inadequate particularisation, dual criminality, and oppression through passage of time. He also renewed an application for permission to appeal on proportionality under article 8. During the appeal, the requesting authority supplied further information, at the High Court’s request, concerning the German location of the alleged conduct.

The central issues were the High Court’s power to obtain and admit that information, the adequacy of the warrant, and whether the statutory or human-rights bars prevented extradition.

1. Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on the article 8 ground refused. The further information supplied by the requesting authority was admissible. The High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to regulate its procedure and may request clarification or admit a respondent’s further evidence where that is in the interests of justice.

2. Sections 27 and 29 of the Extradition Act 2003, as explained in Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi, restrict fresh evidence relied on by a party seeking to succeed on appeal. They do not restrict a respondent who seeks to support the district judge’s decision. Availability before the district judge remains relevant, but is not determinative. The court must not use its power to undermine Parliament’s restrictions; a genuine request to resolve an arguable ambiguity ordinarily does not do so.

3. The warrant was adequately particularised under section 2(4)(c). It described a detailed alleged Ponzi scheme, identified the victims, transactions, dates and losses, and alleged that funds represented to be investments were never invested, as the appellant had planned from the outset. Those allegations disclosed false representations, knowledge of falsity and dishonesty sufficient to reveal an offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

4. The 24 charges were extradition offences under section 64(3). The original warrant entitled the District Judge to infer that relevant representations and intended loss occurred in Germany. The further information made the position clear: the contracts and discussions were alleged to have occurred there.

5. The passage-of-time bar in section 14 was not met. Oppression requires more than hardship and must be assessed in light of the seriousness and connected nature of the alleged offences. Time during which the alleged scheme was deliberately concealed could not assist the appellant. The family consequences, though regrettable, fell well short of oppression.

6. The District Judge’s article 8 balancing exercise was unimpeachable. The later birth of a fourth child and the risk of further post-natal depression did not make extradition disproportionate in light of the serious fraud allegations and the public interest in surrender.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal on grounds 1 to 3 and refused permission to appeal on the article 8 ground: [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin).
• District Judge Snow: on 18 July 2016 discharged the appellant on two charges but ordered extradition on the remaining 24 charges.