Sandra Palka v The Local Court of Görlitz, Germany

For an accusation warrant, the particulars required by Extradition Act 2003 need not match an indictment or identify every act or item of evidence. They must make the alleged offence, its nature, time, place and the requested person’s alleged participation sufficiently clear. In a gang or joint-enterprise case, an allegation that the person joined the gang and was criminally responsible for the agreed course of conduct may suffice, even where individual acts are not attributed to that person in every incident. Further information may clarify gaps where it remains consistent with the warrant. Dual criminality is assessed by the conduct alleged. Proportionality under section 21A is confined to the statutory factors, with no general proportionality ground.

This was an appeal under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for extradition made by District Judge Pilling on 6 March 2025. The German accusation warrant alleged 19 offences involving aggravated gang theft and attempted aggravated gang theft arising from the manipulation of cash machines.

The appellant challenged the warrant’s particularity under section 2, dual criminality under section 10, and the proportionality of extradition under section 21A. The central issues were whether the warrant and further information sufficiently identified her alleged participation, whether the conduct constituted extradition offences in the United Kingdom, and whether extradition would be disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had not erred in any of the three respects advanced.
2. Section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires particulars which enable the requested person to understand the offence alleged and the nature and extent of the allegations. It does not require the specificity of an indictment, a complete account of the evidence, or identification of every word or act performed by each participant. The warrant here gave the dates and places, identified the gang and its criminal plan, described the common method of offending, and specified the 19 alleged offences.
3. In a gang or joint-enterprise case, the allegation that the appellant had joined the gang and was criminally responsible for the agreed course of conduct was sufficiently clear, even though she was not identified as the person physically attending or manipulating the cash machine in every case. The further information supplied more precise dates, times, locations and losses. It filled out the allegation without introducing new offences or changing its substance.
4. The Dresden ruling did not dismiss or discredit any charges. Its finding of strong suspicion in relation to some incidents concerned the domestic warrant and did not determine what would be proved at trial. Differences in legal labels and loss figures between the documents did not deprive the extradition case of particularity.
5. The alleged conduct satisfied dual criminality under section 64(3)(b). It supported conspiracy to steal, theft and attempted theft on a joint-enterprise basis, and participation in the activities of an organised crime group contrary to section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
6. Section 21A requires consideration only of the specified statutory matters: the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty, and the possibility of less coercive measures. The court must not apply a free-standing or general proportionality ground. The planning, sophistication, group offending, repeated incidents, multiple locations and alleged loss made the conduct serious. The likely German sentence was immediate custody, and no less coercive alternative was available. Extradition was therefore proportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
• District Judge Pilling: order for extradition made in a judgment delivered on 6 March 2025.