Malik & Ors v Public Prosecutors Office in Augsberg, Germany

Further information supplied under the extradition framework may reduce the offences for which surrender is sought, provided the warrant remains sufficiently clear and valid. Such information may clarify the charges rather than create uncertainty. A challenge to inaccurate particulars succeeds only where the error is material and clearly established, or where the process amounts to an abuse. The requested person must understand with sufficient certainty what conduct, offences, time, place and role are alleged. Extradition may proceed for offences remaining in the original warrant, but not for additional offences introduced only by later information. For transposition, conduct may constitute an extradition offence even though the requesting state describes it differently from an equivalent offence in the United Kingdom.

Five appellants were subject to accusation European arrest warrants seeking their extradition to Germany for alleged participation in a large-scale VAT carousel fraud. The District Judge ordered extradition, finding that the warrants complied with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Later information reduced the number of charges sought against each appellant and, in some cases, referred to charges added to the German indictment.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the reductions rendered the warrants invalid or uncertain, breached speciality, and failed to satisfy sections 2, 10 and 64(3) of the Act. They also challenged the sufficiency of the particulars and the transposition of the alleged German offences. The central issues were whether the later information could validly reduce the charges and whether the remaining allegations satisfied the statutory requirements.

1. Appeals concerning the reduced charges. The appeals were allowed only to the extent that the respondent no longer sought surrender for particular offences. The appellants were discharged in respect of those offences. Extradition could proceed only for offences appearing both in the original warrants and in the German indictments. Additional offences appearing only in the indictments could not form the basis of extradition.
2. Validity and clarification of the warrants. The reduction in charges did not alter the warrants so fundamentally that they ceased to be valid. The further information clarified the charges and did not create uncertainty. Article 15 of the Framework Decision permitted requests for, and provision of, further information. In complex fraud cases, such clarification was permissible and often desirable.
3. Accuracy of particulars and abuse. Applying Zakrzewski v The Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] UKSC 2, a challenge to the accuracy of warrant particulars could succeed where a statutory particular was materially wrong or incomplete, the true position was clear beyond legitimate dispute, and the error affected the statutory scheme. The inquiry was exceptional and could not be used to contest the factual or evidential basis of the allegations, which was for the requesting court.
4. Particularity. Section 2 required a balance between enabling the requested person to understand the allegations and avoiding unrealistic requirements that would frustrate extradition. Each appellant knew the charges faced, the alleged conduct, the relevant location and the alleged participants with sufficient particularity. The warrants therefore complied with section 2(4)(c).
5. Extradition offences. The alleged conduct would constitute offences under United Kingdom law, including conspiracy to defraud or cheating the revenue. The absence of an identical United Kingdom offence corresponding to the German description did not prevent transposition under section 64(3). Conduct forming part of the criminality could have occurred or had effects outside the United Kingdom.
6. The renewed applications concerning the remaining grounds were refused. The appeals were dismissed on those matters.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeals from orders of District Judge Snow were allowed only for offences no longer pursued, and dismissed on the remaining issues.