SALIM RAHIM RANA v RICHTER AM AMTSGERICHT, AMTSGERICHT, STUTTGART, GERMANY

An EAW satisfies Extradition Act 2003, s 2(4), if it states the maximum sentence applicable to the offences. It need not predict the likely sentence. Where the European framework-list conditions in s 64(5) are met, dual criminality and an assessment of the evidential strength of the foreign case are unnecessary, subject to any obvious inconsistency in the warrant.

Under s 21A, proportionality is assessed only by reference to seriousness, likely penalty and less coercive measures. Under s 14, hardship caused by delay is insufficient without oppressive consequences causally connected with the passage of time. Article 8 family hardship must be balanced against the public interest in extradition; exceptional hardship is not required, but ordinary hardship will not usually prevail.

The appellant appealed against the Senior District Judge’s decision of 9 July 2021 ordering his extradition to Germany under an accusation European Arrest Warrant. The warrant alleged market manipulation, completed fraud and attempted fraud. The appeal challenged the warrant’s sentence particulars, the existence of extradition offences, proportionality and Article 8 rights, and the statutory bar arising from delay.

Permission was granted on all grounds. Further expert evidence concerning German criminal procedure was admitted for consideration on the merits, although ultimately excluded. The central issues were whether the warrant and statutory conditions were satisfied, whether extradition was disproportionate or oppressive, and whether there was a flagrant risk of an unfair trial.

1. Appeal dismissed. The EAW complied with Extradition Act 2003, s 2(4). It stated the maximum sentences applicable to the market-manipulation and fraud allegations. Section 2 did not require an indication of the likely sentence. Any possible alternative prosecution was constrained by Article 27 of the Council Framework Decision of 2002.
2. The offences were extradition offences under s 64(5). The conduct occurred in Germany, no part occurred in the United Kingdom, the certificate identified conduct within the European framework list, and the German punishment met the statutory threshold. The court should ordinarily accept the issuing state’s classification unless there is an obvious inconsistency showing that the conduct does not constitute an offence. The evidential strength of the German case was not an issue. In any event, the conduct also satisfied the double-criminality test under s 64(3).
3. The extradition was proportionate under s 21A. The court was entitled to assess the alleged offending as serious, having regard to the alleged leading role, substantial potential losses and financial gain. The German authorities were entitled to reject less coercive measures involving possible proceedings in Canada. The appellant’s lack of United Kingdom ties was not itself a positive factor favouring surrender, but the Senior District Judge’s error in treating it as such did not affect the conclusion.
4. The Article 8 challenge failed. The Senior District Judge had conducted the required balancing exercise, recognising the appellant’s granddaughter’s grave illness and the family hardship. Mere hardship was insufficient, and the conclusion that the public interest in extradition prevailed was open to him.
5. The s 14 bar was not established. Applying Kakis v Republic of Cyprus and Zengota v Poland, oppression requires more than hardship and requires attention to causation, culpability, false security, changed circumstances and the gravity of the allegations. The appellant knew of the investigation, had not been induced to believe that proceedings had ended, and the delay did not make extradition oppressive. Nor was there a flagrant risk of denial of a fair trial under Article 6. The expert report and additional material did not alter that conclusion.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — [2022] EWHC 1409 (Admin): appeal against the extradition order dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court — Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, 9 July 2021: extradition to Germany ordered.