Anthony Mark Patterson v Court of Glostrup (Denmark)

In extradition proceedings, particulars satisfy Extradition Act 2003 section 2(4)(c) where the accusation warrant, read holistically and supplemented by permissible further information, identifies the alleged place, time and conduct with reasonable certainty. The court should assess whether the particulars enable the requested person to understand the case and raise relevant bars or safeguards.

On a forum-bar challenge under section 19B, an appellate court will not interfere with an evaluative conclusion absent an arguable error of principle or outcome. Civil proceedings in the United Kingdom, UK connections and the availability of evidence here may weigh against extradition, but may be outweighed by factors including the location of the loss, domestic victims, delay, and the desirability of a single trial.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Denmark to face allegations of completed and attempted complicity in fraud relating to Danish dividend-tax refunds. District Judge Godfrey ordered extradition on 20 September 2022 after a three-day hearing.

The appellant renewed an application for permission to appeal on two grounds. First, he alleged that the Extradition Arrest Warrant and further information failed to particularise the place, time and conduct required by section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. Secondly, he challenged the District Judge’s conclusion under section 19B that extradition was in the interests of justice, relying particularly on related civil proceedings in London and the practical consequences of parallel proceedings.

1. Permission refused. The challenge concerned the application of established legal principles rather than any misunderstanding of them. The District Judge’s conclusions were unimpeachable.
2. Section 2(4)(c) requires particulars of the circumstances, including the alleged conduct and the time and place. The warrant and further information, read together, adequately identified the appellant’s alleged activities in London and Dubai between 2013 and 2015. They described his alleged responsibility for arranging fictitious trades, the refund applications, the investors involved, the amounts, and his alleged financial benefit.
3. The further information was admissible because there had been no wholesale failure of particularisation. The particulars sufficiently explained the substance of the case, enabled the appellant to raise extradition bars and safeguards, and supported the dual-criminality and specialty assessments. The reasoning was consistent with Manuel v Portugal [2020] EWHC 744 (Admin) and Alexander v France [2018] QB 408. The approach reflected the line of authority including Von Der Pahlen v Austria [2006] EWHC 1672 (Admin) and Klar v Belgium [2021] EWHC 3001 (Admin).
4. For the section 19B forum bar, the District Judge correctly identified the statutory sequence and relevant interests-of-justice factors. He took into account the appellant’s UK activity and connections, the availability of evidence in the UK, and the Danish Tax Authority’s civil proceedings in London.
5. The conclusion that extradition remained in the interests of justice was an evaluative judgment. The loss and harm occurred overwhelmingly in Denmark; Danish victims had an interest in domestic criminal proceedings; a UK prosecution would cause substantial additional delay; and a single Danish trial was desirable. The practical difficulties of defending Danish criminal proceedings while civil proceedings continued in London had also been considered. No arguable error justified appellate intervention.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
• District Judge Godfrey: extradition to Denmark was ordered on 20 September 2022.
• Administrative Court on the papers: Dove J refused permission to appeal.