Kapoor v Juzagado De Instruccion No.4 De Las Palmas De Gran Canaria (Spain)

An accusation European Arrest Warrant is construed in a cosmopolitan manner, having regard to the criminal procedure of the requesting state. References to investigation or judicial questioning do not necessarily show that the warrant is investigative rather than prosecutorial. Extrinsic material need be examined only where the warrant is equivocal.

Under section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, the requested person must establish reasonable grounds for believing that a decision to charge or try has not been made and that absence from the requesting territory is not the sole reason. A high threshold applies to health-based objections under section 25. Serious allegations and the public interest in extradition may outweigh medical vulnerability where appropriate care can be provided abroad.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Spain under a European Arrest Warrant. He was sought for prosecution for human trafficking and facilitating unauthorised entry and residence.

The appeal raised four issues: whether the warrant was issued for prosecution under section 2(3) of the Extradition Act 2003; whether extradition was barred by the absence of a prosecution decision under section 12A; whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with Article 8 rights; and whether it would be unjust or oppressive because of the appellant’s physical and mental condition.

New psychiatric and psychological evidence was relied upon on appeal.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The warrant was an accusation warrant and expressly stated that surrender was sought for criminal prosecution. Applying the cosmopolitan approach required by Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court, Hungary [2011] 1 WLR 252 and the reasoning in R (Miguel Meizoso-Gonzales) v Juzgado de Instruccion Cinco de Palma de Mallorca, Spain [2010] EWHC 3655 (Admin), references to investigation and judicial questioning did not undermine that purpose. The request for seizure of evidence did not alter the conclusion. The warrant complied with section 2(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Ground 2 dismissed. The evidence did not provide reasonable grounds for believing that no decision to charge or try had been made. In any event, the material indicated that the appellant’s absence from Spain was the reason he had not been arrested and questioned. The first stage of the section 12A test was therefore not satisfied. The court applied the practical and purposive approach in Puceviciene v Lithuanian Judicial Authority [2016] EWHC 1862 (Admin), Kandola v Generalstaatwaltschaft Frankfurt, Germany [2015] 1 WLR 5097 and Doci v Italy [2016] EWHC 2100 (Admin).
3. Grounds 3 and 4 dismissed. The court conducted the Article 8 balancing exercise afresh. The appellant was vulnerable and had learning difficulties, but the evidence did not establish that extradition would be disproportionate. The high threshold for a health-based objection under section 25, identified in Turner v Government of the USA [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin), was not met.
4. The Spanish authorities could be taken to provide appropriate care and treatment, consistently with Poland v Wolkowicz [2013] EWHC 102 (Admin). They were not required to specify every practical arrangement before extradition. The seriousness of the allegations and the public interest in extradition outweighed the interference with the appellant’s private and family life. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order dated 13 November 2018 was dismissed. Permission to appeal had been granted on all four grounds.