Stedman v French Judicial Authority

A European arrest warrant may be validated by supplementary information which supplies missing particulars, provided the information establishes the warrant’s factual basis and does not wholly replace it. The original warrant remains the relevant judicial document; an English translation does not replace it. An abuse-of-process challenge is exceptional and requires a misleading error, clear correction of the true facts, and materiality to the extradition scheme. Once an error has been corrected to the requested person’s advantage, it is no longer material. For dual criminality, the court examines the alleged conduct in the United Kingdom. The fact that the conduct may support more or fewer charges abroad is irrelevant.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order of District Judge Ashworth at Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to France. The European arrest warrant sought his return to serve the balance of a sentence imposed for drug-trafficking offences, but mistakenly referred to nine convictions when he had been convicted of eight.

The appellant challenged the warrant’s validity under section 2, alleged abuse of process, and disputed whether the offences were extradition offences under sections 10 and 65. The District Judge rejected each challenge. The central issues were whether the error could be corrected by further information, whether the warrant contained sufficient particulars, and whether the described conduct satisfied dual criminality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to order extradition in respect of the eight convictions.
2. An abuse-of-process challenge in extradition is exceptional. The requirements identified in Zakrzewski v Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] 1 WLR 324 were met as to the existence of a misleading error, because the warrant referred to nine offences instead of eight. They were not met as to the remaining requirements. Certified translations supplied by the judicial authority established clearly that the appellant had been convicted of eight offences and not the ninth. The documents complied with section 202(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
3. The error had ceased to be material by the extradition hearing because it had been corrected to the appellant’s advantage. The Crown Prosecution Service was entitled, and bound, to identify the error and make clear that extradition was not sought for the ninth offence. No further information was required.
4. The warrant was valid under section 2. The conduct summary was sufficiently clear and needed no greater detail. The District Judge could consider the French original, which was the warrant issued by the judicial authority, and the English translation did not replace it. Missing information could also be supplied by further information, provided there was no wholesale replacement of the warrant. The information satisfied section 2(6)(b); it was unnecessary to identify the date and location of the convicting court.
5. For dual criminality, the court considers the conduct alleged and asks whether it would constitute an offence in the United Kingdom. The precise number of charges that the conduct might generate in the requesting state is irrelevant. The conduct described could constitute drug-trafficking offences in this jurisdiction.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extradition order was dismissed. Extradition was permitted to proceed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Ashworth found no bar to extradition, held extradition proportionate and necessary, and ordered extradition in respect of eight offences.