Actil v. Tribunal de Grand Instance

For extradition to proceed, a European Arrest Warrant must identify the conviction and the requested person’s alleged participation with sufficient clarity and particularity to secure the practical protection of specialty. A broad description of a criminal scheme is insufficient where it leaves unclear whether the person was convicted as a mere carrier or as a more deeply involved conspirator. On an appeal under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, materially unavailable evidence may require the appellate court to revisit the extradition decision. Where the warrant and supporting material remain opaque, the court should not create a narrower, selectively excised version of the warrant. The appropriate course may be to discharge the requested person and quash the extradition order, leaving the requesting state free to issue a clearer warrant.

The appellant had been convicted in absentia by a Paris criminal court following a trial concerning international cocaine trafficking. A French European Arrest Warrant sought his extradition in respect of several offences, including drug trafficking and participation in a criminal association. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition, finding that his conduct was confined to collecting five kilograms of cocaine in France and transporting it to Great Britain in January 2014.

On appeal, further information from the French prosecutor described the appellant as involved in a structured network but did not clarify whether his participation extended beyond acting as a carrier. The central issue was whether the warrant and supporting material particularised the conviction sufficiently to enable reliance on specialty.

1. Appeal allowed. The further letter from the French prosecutor was admitted under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, since it was evidence that was not available at the extradition hearing and both parties relied upon it.
2. The requirement in section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 for particulars of the conviction requires sufficient information about the offence, the relevant time and place, and the requested person’s involvement. The amount of detail depends on the offence, but a broad omnibus description does not suffice. The purpose is to inform the requested person of the nature and extent of the allegations and to protect specialty.
3. The warrant and the French judgment referred variously to conduct during January 2014, several countries, drug trafficking, sale and participation in a criminal association. The later French response referred to a structured network, accomplices and preparatory and executive actions, but did not confirm that the appellant’s participation was limited to collecting and transporting five kilograms of cocaine. The material therefore left opaque whether he was a simple carrier or a more involved conspirator.
4. The new evidence would have caused the district judge to approach the issue differently. The appellate court could not safely substitute an order limited to possession and transport, because the overall picture was too unclear and such an order would amount to an unjustified filleting of the warrant.
5. The appellant was discharged and the extradition order was quashed. The French authorities remained free to issue a fresh European Arrest Warrant identifying clearly the conduct, dates and locations relied upon.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 27 November 2020, District Judge Paul Goldspring ordered extradition.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed. The appellant was discharged and the extradition order was quashed.