Ahmed v Swedish Economic Crime Authority

An accusation European Arrest Warrant may validly seek surrender for prosecution even though the investigation continues and further evidence or interviews remain necessary. The court must assess the warrant as a whole and adopt a cosmopolitan, substance-based approach to translated legal terminology. A decision to charge or try may be conditional, subject to review, or made before formal procedural steps are completed. Statements by the issuing judicial authority should be accepted absent clear evidence of bad faith or impropriety. Extradition to an EU or Council of Europe state is subject to strong presumptions of mutual confidence and Convention compliance. Those presumptions are displaced only by clear, cogent and compelling evidence establishing a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 3 or 5 of the Convention.

The appellant challenged a Westminster Magistrates’ Court order dated 16 May 2016 requiring his extradition to Sweden under an accusation European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned alleged gross tax and bookkeeping offences arising from a missing-trader VAT scheme.

Permission to appeal was granted on three issues: whether the warrant was issued for investigation rather than prosecution, whether extradition was barred by the absence of a prosecution decision under section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether surrender would violate Articles 3 or 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central questions were whether decisions to charge and try had been made, and whether the evidence displaced the presumptions applicable to extradition to Sweden.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant unequivocally sought the appellant’s arrest and surrender for prosecution and trial. References to protecting the investigation and obtaining evidence did not alter that purpose. An investigation may continue after a decision to prosecute has been made.
2. The warrant had to be read as a whole and in substance, rather than by transposing translated Swedish procedural terminology into English legal categories. The issuing prosecutor’s clear statement that she had decided that the appellant should stand trial was entitled to be accepted. There was no clear evidence of bad faith or impropriety.
3. Section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003 did not bar extradition. A decision to charge or try need not be formal or final. It may be conditional, subject to review, or subject to completion of steps such as an interview. The complexity of the investigation and the possibility of further interviews did not undermine the prosecutor’s decision.
4. The judge was not required to resolve competing expert opinions about the niceties of Swedish law. Expert evidence from lawyers about the requesting state’s procedure should be very rare.
5. The evidence did not establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 3 or 5 of the Convention. The restrictions described did not amount to solitary confinement or inhuman or degrading treatment. Regular judicial review of detention every two weeks, including proportionality review, provided an effective safeguard. The reports relied upon did not establish the international consensus necessary to rebut the presumption that Sweden would comply with its Convention obligations.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court order of 16 May 2016 dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered extradition to Sweden under an accusation European Arrest Warrant.