Maureen Adebayo v Central Investigation Court No 3 Madrid (Spain)

For an accusation European Arrest Warrant, section 2 particularisation requires sufficient, realistic and intelligible information about the alleged conduct, its timing and location. It does not require the detail of an indictment. The warrant and its supplementary information must be read as a whole and in the round, with due regard to mutual trust and the purposes of the extradition scheme. Conduct connected with several foreign offences may be relied on for each offence. The requested person must nevertheless be able to understand the substance of the allegations, conduct a dual-criminality transposition exercise where relevant, identify extradition bars and invoke specialty protection. A court may interpret information by using a sensible aid to interpretation and may consider the requested person’s evidenced position where relevant to understanding the allegations. Statutory disproportionality and Article 8 require assessment of the specified statutory and Convention factors; neither was established on the facts.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order of 27 January 2022 extraditing her to Spain under an accusation European Arrest Warrant issued on 5 April 2019 and certified on 29 November 2020. The warrant, Form A supplementary information and further information concerned alleged swindling, receiving stolen goods or money laundering, and participation in a criminal organisation.

The appeal challenged the sufficiency of the particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, the finding that extradition would not be disproportionate under section 21A, and the Article 8 assessment. The appellant also sought to rely on updated evidence concerning family members in Nigeria. The central issues were whether the accusation identified an adequately particularised course of conduct and whether extradition was unlawful or disproportionate.

The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had been entitled to order extradition.

1. Particularisation. The warrant and accompanying information had to be read as a whole. The relevant focus was the conduct alleged to constitute the offences, rather than the ingredients of the foreign offences. The same or closely interconnected conduct could constitute more than one listed offence. The allegation was not that the appellant personally carried out the manipulation and deception used to induce victims to transfer money. It was that she knowingly made controlled bank accounts available to the organisation, received transfers into them knowing their illicit origin, and made onward transfers to dissipate or distance the funds. The reference to the organisation’s trickery was therefore a non-allegation against her, not an inadequately particularised allegation.
2. The information gave sufficient details of the nature of the conduct, four transfers between 19 August 2013 and 22 July 2014, the controlled accounts and companies, the amounts, and an onward transfer. Those particulars enabled the appellant to understand the allegations, perform any necessary transposition exercise, identify extradition bars and invoke specialty protection. The requirement was one of sufficient clarity, not full or exhaustive detail or the specificity required in an indictment.
3. The reference to the Cajastur account could properly be understood as referring to an account in a Spanish bank. This was interpretation rather than impermissible reading-in. The court could also consider the appellant’s evidenced residence in Spain at the relevant times and the Spanish Supreme Court’s jurisdictional decision, provided the statutory purposes of particularisation remained satisfied.
4. Statutory proportionality. The Spanish authorities’ decision not to pursue less coercive measures was entitled to respect and was not patently unreasonable. Even giving that possibility significant weight, the seriousness of the allegations, the maximum penalties of six, six and eight years’ imprisonment, and the possibility of a substantial custodial sentence meant that extradition was not disproportionate.
5. Article 8. The District Judge had conducted the required balance-sheet assessment, including the appellant’s UK circumstances, family connections in Nigeria, non-fugitive status and the possibility that imprisonment was not inevitable. The strong public interest in extradition, the seriousness of the alleged offences, the previous Spanish conviction, limited UK ties, evidential weaknesses and other circumstances decisively outweighed the countervailing factors. Permission to adduce the putative fresh evidence was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the District Judge’s order of 27 January 2022 dismissed.
• District Judge: after an oral hearing on 14 December 2021, ordered extradition to Spain.