Connor & Ors v Public Prosecutor's Office Augsburg, Germany

An EAW complies with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 where it enables the requested person to understand with reasonable certainty the substance of the allegations, including what is alleged, when and where it occurred, and the relevant law. Precise particulars of every individual act are not invariably required where the warrant identifies the alleged organisation, the person’s role, the companies involved, the relevant periods, the overall loss and the location of the alleged offending.

A later reduction or reformulation of charges does not invalidate an EAW unless it unequivocally shows that extradition is no longer sought for the offences specified. Any resulting relief is ordinarily confined to offences no longer pursued. Extradition remains proportionate where the public interest in extradition and the seriousness of the alleged offending outweigh the requested person’s Article 8 rights.

Three appellants appealed against orders made by District Judge Zani in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 20 December 2017 directing their extradition to Germany. Each was the subject of an EAW issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office Augsburg concerning alleged VAT fraud. The warrants sought Connor’s extradition for 266 offences, Shammas’s for 96 offences and Herbert’s for 29 offences.

The appellants argued that the EAWs lacked sufficient particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. Following the preparation of German indictments containing fewer charges, they also argued that extradition had become an abuse of process. The central issues were whether the EAWs remained valid and whether extradition should proceed in light of the later indictments and correspondence.

1. Permission and evidence. Permission to appeal and permission to amend the grounds were granted. The indictments and letters dated 9 May 2017 were admitted under section 202 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Adequacy of particulars. The warrants complied with section 2(4)(c). Applying the approach summarised in Dhar v National Office of the Public Prosecution of the Netherlands [2012] EWHC 697 (Admin), an EAW must provide enough information to enable the requested person to understand with reasonable certainty what he is said to have done, when and where, and any necessary knowledge. The warrants described the alleged fraud, the organisations, companies and roles of the appellants, the relevant periods, the tax losses, the place of the alleged offending and the relevant German law. Exact dates and amounts for every individual offence were unnecessary.
3. The reasoning in Din v Director of Public Prosecutions of the Augsburg Public Prosecutors Office, Germany [2017] EWHC 475 (Admin) reinforced that conclusion. The court rejected the submission that the warrants impermissibly treated the allegations as a single conspiracy rather than addressing the individual offences.
4. Later indictments and charge reduction. The German letters, read as a whole, did not unequivocally qualify the EAWs or state that extradition was no longer sought for the offences specified in them. The warrants remained valid and accurate, and the reduced indictments were explained as an effort to tighten the trial. The appellants were therefore to be extradited for all offences covered by the EAWs.
5. Even if the letters had unequivocally withdrawn some offences, the proper approach under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, as modified by article 7 of the Extradition Act 2003 (Multiple Offences) Order 2003, would have been to allow the appeals only in relation to offences no longer sought and dismiss them in relation to the remaining offences. Extradition for offences forming a subset of those particularised in the EAW would not have been an abuse of process.
6. Human rights and ancillary matters. Extradition was compatible with Article 8 ECHR and proportionate. The appellants’ family, residence and personal circumstances were outweighed by the public interest in respecting extradition arrangements and the seriousness of the alleged fraud and potential sentences. The decision to charge and try had been taken; formal opening of proceedings by the German court was unnecessary.
7. Disposition. Each appeal was dismissed. The EAWs provided adequate particulars, had not ceased to be correct, and extradition for all offences included in them was appropriate.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered the extradition of each appellant on 20 December 2017.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted, but all three appeals were dismissed. The extradition orders were maintained.