QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
|(1) THE CENTRAL COURT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS NUMBER 5 OF THE NATIONAL COURT, MADRID|
|(2) THE SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE,|
|BOW STREET MAGISTRATES' COURT||Respondents|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR JOHN HARDY and MISS CLAIR DOBBIN (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS
PROCEEDINGS AND HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
"Is it an abuse of process of the court to seek the surrender of a person ... under the terms of a European arrest warrant, where the authority responsible for the prosecution of the person, and the applicable appellate court, regards the conduct set out in the European Arrest Warrant as insufficient to justify conviction for the principal offences in it?"
Your Lordship will appreciate that that was a question that rose in the context of a court judgment in Spain, and that since then there has been a judgment of the Supreme Court in which the principal alleged co -conspirator, Mr Yarkas, has been acquitted even of conspiracy to murder.
"Is it lawful to surrender a person under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 to be tried for the offences of murder and membership of a terrorist organisation, when the conduct constituting those offences constitutes different extradition offences in the United Kingdom for which the person will not be tried after surrender?"
"Is a United Kingdom court entitled to assume from the fact that a territory which is party to the European arrest warrant scheme has been designated as a territory to which Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 applies, that it has speciality arrangements within the meaning of section 17 of that Act?"
"Is it an abuse of process of the court to seek the surrender of a person from the United Kingdom under the terms of a European arrest warrant, where the authority responsible for the prosecution of the person, and the applicable appellate court, regards the conduct set out in the European Arrest Warrant as insufficient to justify conviction for the principal offences alleged in it?"
"Is a United Kingdom court entitled to conclude for the purposes of section 7(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 that the person brought before it is the person referred to on the European arrest warrant, where the only evidence is an assertion by the person that his name is the same as that on the warrant, and that he has a similar, but not identical, date of birth?"