M B v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy

An accusation European Arrest Warrant must identify, with the clarity required by section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, each offence for which extradition is sought, including the alleged conduct, time and place. Where several offences are specified, the requirements apply to each. The requesting judicial authority bears the burden of proving compliance to the criminal standard, although the court approaches the warrant with mutual trust and reasonable allowance for translation difficulties. Supplementary information may resolve ambiguity or fill a lacuna, but cannot cure a wholesale failure to identify the offences. If the warrant fails that threshold, the Article 8 issue under section 21A does not arise.

M and B appealed against orders of District Judge Michael Snow requiring their return to Italy under two European Arrest Warrants. The warrants concerned allegations of trafficking and exploiting African women and children for prostitution. The District Judge treated them as accusation warrants, found compliance with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, and considered interference with the family life of the appellants and their three children proportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appeals raised the validity of the warrants, the admissibility of further information supplied after the first-instance decision, and the Article 8 issue.

Both appeals were allowed. Nicol J gave the principal judgment, with Lord Justice Gross agreeing. The appellants were discharged because the European Arrest Warrants failed to comply with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. The requesting judicial authority had to establish compliance with section 2 to the criminal standard. The court was nevertheless required to approach the warrants in the spirit of mutual trust and to allow reasonably for difficulties arising from translation.
2. Each offence for which return was sought had to be identified with sufficient clarity. That requirement enabled the court to assess whether the offence was extraditable and defined the scope of any subsequent prosecution, including specialty protection.
3. The narrower approach associated with Dabas v Spain [2007] 2 AC 31 had been overtaken by a broader approach. In light of Criminal Proceedings against Bob-Dogi [2016] 1 WLR 4583 and Goluchowski v District Court in Elbag Poland [2016] UKSC 36, a requested-state court could seek further information, and in some circumstances might be required to do so.
4. That power was limited. As explained in Alexander v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marseille District Court of First Instance; Di Benedetto v Court of Palermo, Italy [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin), supplementary information could resolve ambiguity or fill lacunae, but could not cure a wholesale failure to provide the necessary particulars. These warrants created fundamental uncertainty about whether all listed offences were alleged and gave no means of identifying the appellants by the unexplained defendant numbers. The later information was therefore inadmissible and reinforced, rather than cured, the defect.
5. The separate challenge concerning the individual roles alleged was not justified once the remaining allegations were understood as stand-alone offences, although further particulars might be advisable if new warrants were issued. The court did not determine the wider fresh-evidence or abuse-of-process arguments.
6. The Article 8 issue under section 21A did not arise because the warrants failed at the earlier section 2 stage. Any new extradition hearing would require consideration of the family’s circumstances as they then existed. The seriousness of the conduct would remain relevant.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed both appeals and discharged M and B because the European Arrest Warrants failed to comply with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Michael Snow ordered the appellants’ return to Italy on 11 August 2016 and held that the warrants complied with section 2(4)(c). He also found the Article 8 interference proportionate.
3. Permission to appeal: Dingemans J refused permission on the papers. Lang J granted permission on renewal on 1 December 2016.