Choudhary v Prosecutor At the Creteil TGI, France

Following withdrawal of a European arrest warrant, Extradition Act 2003, s.42(3) requires the requested person’s immediate discharge and the setting aside of the extradition order. Although the provision ordinarily requires no reasons, it does not prevent a court from giving reasons where the justice of the case requires a narrative judgment. Such a judgment may be appropriate where subsequent information establishes that the person arrested cannot sensibly be maintained to be the person wanted for the offences. The court should, however, avoid disproportionate inquiries into the history of the mistake or rule on legal issues that no longer arise.

The appellant had been convicted in his absence in France and was the subject of a conviction European arrest warrant. He maintained that he was not the person who had committed the offences, but an individual whose identity had been stolen. A District Judge ordered extradition. During the appeal, further French investigations established that the appellant’s fingerprints did not match those of the wanted person and that witnesses recognised another individual. The French authorities withdrew the warrant. The court had already ordered the appellant’s discharge and quashed the extradition order, and had to decide whether he was entitled to a narrative judgment explaining the position.

1. Disposition. The court had ordered the appellant’s discharge and quashed the order for his extradition after the French authorities withdrew the European arrest warrant. Section 42(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 mandated that result.
2. Reasons after withdrawal. The clear effect of s.42(3) was that the appellant was entitled to be discharged forthwith. The provision imposed no obligation to give reasons, since the court ordinarily responds to the withdrawal as a fait accompli. It did not, however, preclude reasons where the justice of the particular case required them. The court relied by analogy on Lodhi v SSHD [2010] EWHC 567 (Admin) and Bucnys and others v Lithuania and others [2013] UKSC 71.
3. Appropriate scope. The French authorities’ fingerprint evidence, witness identifications and withdrawal of the warrant meant that it could not sensibly be maintained that the appellant was the person wanted in France for the offences committed between 2011 and 2013. A brief narrative judgment was therefore justified to record that position and the French concession.
4. The court declined to conduct a wider inquiry into what had happened, including whether the French investigations should have occurred earlier. Neither the District Judge nor the court had found that the appellant had lied about his identity. It was unnecessary to rule on the correct legal test in mistaken-identity cases, and no determination was made that the appellant’s article 5 rights had been violated.
5. The parties were invited to make brief submissions on costs.

• District Judge: District Judge Zani ordered the appellant’s extradition to France on 17 May 2019.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appellant appealed. The court’s earlier judgment, [2020] EWHC 1966 (Admin), adjourned final consideration pending further information and inquiries. Following withdrawal of the European arrest warrant, the court ordered discharge and quashed the extradition order.