EVERS GONZALEZ LAZO v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

At the initial stages of a Part 2 extradition hearing, the judge must be satisfied to the criminal standard that the requesting state has forwarded a document which it identifies as an arrest warrant. The judge need not determine whether the warrant is valid under the requesting state’s law and procedure.

A challenge to the warrant’s validity is instead pursued as an abuse of process. It succeeds only where invalidity is established by facts that are clear and beyond legitimate dispute. Mutual trust between states supports taking the requesting state’s document at face value, subject to that safeguard.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Tempia’s decision of 2 September 2020 to send his case to the Secretary of State under the Extradition Act 2003. The Secretary of State subsequently ordered extradition to the United States.

The appeal concerned whether an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida was defective because it bore the signature of a deputy clerk rather than a federal judge. The court also considered fresh evidence about the United States warrant-issuing process. The central questions were the proper approach to validity under section 78 and whether the warrant was invalid on facts clear beyond legitimate dispute.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was right to send the case to the Secretary of State.
2. Under section 78(2)(d) of the Extradition Act 2003, the judge must be satisfied to the criminal standard that the documents forwarded by the Secretary of State include a document which the requesting state says is a warrant for the requested person’s arrest. The provision does not require the judge independently to determine whether the document is valid under the requesting state’s law.
3. Such an independent validity inquiry would impose an onerous obligation on District Judges and would conflict with the principles of mutual cooperation, recognition and respect identified in Zakrzewski v Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] UKSC 2. The requesting state’s document should generally be taken at face value.
4. The requested person retains an abuse of process remedy. Under the Zakrzewski approach, the challenge succeeds only if invalidity is established by facts that are clear and beyond legitimate dispute. Foreign law is treated as a question of fact. If invalidity is so established, the warrant cannot initiate extradition proceedings and the person must be discharged.
5. The warrant was not shown to be invalid. Under United States law, the ambiguity in the pro forma document attracted a presumption of regularity. The clerk’s signature was consistent with Rule 9(b), while the evidence concerning the normal procedure, the same-day indictment and warrant, the standard form wording, and the absence of any improper conduct established validity to the criminal standard. The United States decision in United States v Light provided additional support.
6. Fresh evidence from both parties was admitted in the interests of justice under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the decision of District Judge Tempia dated 2 September 2020 dismissed.
• Secretary of State: extradition ordered on 13 October 2020.
• District Judge (Magistrates’ Court): case sent to the Secretary of State under the Extradition Act 2003.