Din v Director of Public Prosecutions of the Augsburg, Germany

A European arrest warrant is valid under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 where it gives sufficient particulars of the alleged conduct, including what the requested person is said to have done and the relevant time and place. Precise dates for every act are not essential where the period and circumstances are adequately identified.

Under section 12A, a decision to charge or try may be made informally and conditionally, subject to the criminal procedure of the requesting state. In German procedure, submission of a bill of indictment commences the trial process; the process does not begin only when the court formally opens the main proceedings.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 23 August 2016 for his extradition to Germany under an accusation European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned twenty alleged offences arising from a German VAT carousel fraud.

He challenged the warrant under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, arguing that the allegations lacked sufficient particulars. He also argued that extradition was barred under section 12A because Germany had not made decisions to charge and try him. An indictment was lodged after the magistrates’ court decision, and the challenge to the absence of a charging decision was abandoned. The central issues were whether the warrant contained adequate particulars and whether the statutory decisions to charge and try had been made.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant contained sufficient particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. It described the alleged VAT fraud, the companies involved, the appellant’s role, the period of offending, and the total losses. The absence of a table giving the precise date and amount for each offence did not invalidate the warrant.
2. The requirements of section 2(4)(c) must be considered separately for each offence. The warrant must enable the requested person to understand with reasonable certainty what he is alleged to have done, when and where, and, where relevant, why the necessary knowledge is alleged. The degree of detail depends on the nature of the offence. The warrant met that standard, notwithstanding that the alleged conduct formed part of an international fraud carried out in different places.
3. The appellant’s speciality-rule argument was speculative. The warrant’s description would define the protection available, and there was no basis for assuming that Germany intended to add impermissible charges.
4. Section 12A adopts a cosmopolitan approach to decisions to charge and try. The decisions need not be formal. A decision to try may be conditional or subject to review, provided the competent authority has decided to proceed with the trial process. The guidance in Kandola v Generalstaatwaltschaft Frankfurt, Germany, [2015] EWHC 619 (Admin), and Puceviciene v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania, [2016] 1 WLR 4937, was correctly applied. The point in Doci v Court of Brescia, Italy, [2016] EWHC 2100 (Admin), that a firm intention is insufficient unless a decision has actually been made was also respected.
5. Under German procedure, the public prosecutor’s submission of a bill of indictment concludes the investigation and triggers preparatory proceedings directed to deciding whether the main proceedings should be opened. Those preparatory proceedings form part of the trial process. It was therefore unnecessary for the Augsburg court first to make an order opening the main proceedings. The decisions to charge and try had been made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extradition order of 23 August 2016 was dismissed.