Tilea v General Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Appeal in Ghent, Belgium

Particulars in a European arrest warrant must balance simplicity with sufficient information. In serial offending, the warrant need not identify the precise role performed by the requested person in every offence if it explains the common basis of liability and gives adequate details of the offences.

The executing court should ordinarily accept the issuing state’s classification under the European framework list unless there is an obvious inconsistency. An offence which is neither so classified nor equivalent to an offence under English law is not an extradition offence. Article 8 requires a structured balancing exercise. Children’s welfare is a primary consideration, but extradition may remain proportionate where the interference, though severe, is not exceptionally severe.

The appellant challenged an order of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring her extradition to Belgium to serve the balance of an eight-year sentence imposed for 46 offences. Permission was granted on issues concerning the adequacy of the European arrest warrant and the application of article 8 of the Convention.

The warrant described numerous thefts, attempted thefts, offences involving a criminal association, forgery, use of a false name and alleged laundering of bail money. The appellant argued that the warrant did not sufficiently describe her participation and that extradition would disproportionately interfere with her family life, particularly the welfare of her three children.

The central issues were whether the offences were extradition offences under the Extradition Act 2003 and whether extradition remained compatible with article 8.

1. Particularity and participation. The appeal succeeded only in relation to the 44th offence. In a case involving serial and multiple offending, the requirement to specify the nature and degree of participation must be interpreted proportionately. The warrant need not provide a separate factual narrative identifying whether the requested person was, for example, a lookout or the person who removed the property. It was sufficient that the warrant identified the appellant as perpetrator or co-perpetrator, explained the relevant basis of liability and supplied details of dates, places, victims and property.
2. Framework-list classifications. The court accepted the classifications of the theft, burglary, attempted theft, criminal-association, forgery and laundering offences as falling within the European framework list. There was no obvious inconsistency requiring the court to go behind the issuing state’s classifications. Dual criminality was therefore established under section 65(5)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.
3. 44th offence. The repeated public use of a false name was not classified under the framework list. The conduct, without more, did not constitute an offence under English law. The appellant therefore had to be discharged in respect of that offence under sections 65(2) and 65(3)(b).
4. Article 8. The District Judge had carried out the required balancing exercise. The public interest in extradition was substantial because the offending was serious, serial and committed while the appellant was a fugitive. The children’s welfare was a primary consideration, and the likely emotional harm was serious. Nevertheless, the conclusion that the consequences were not so catastrophic as to make extradition disproportionate was open to the judge. Removing the 44th offence did not materially alter the balance.
5. The order was upheld except in relation to the 44th offence, on which the appellant was discharged.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the District Judge’s extradition order was upheld except in relation to the 44th offence; the appellant was discharged on that offence only.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Branston ordered extradition under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.