QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE
|CARL ANTONIO HALL||(CLAIMANT)|
|THE GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR J SMITH (instructed by RAJ LAW PRACTICE) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR R MCCOUBREY (instructed by CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday, 23rd February 2006
"The information is -
(a) particulars of the person's identity;
(b) particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence;
(c) particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence, the time and place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence and any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence;
(d) particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence if the person is convicted of it."
"The following offences, if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 3 years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant:
- illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances..."
The offences in the list, one item of which I have included, are sometimes labelled "framework list offences".
"If the warrant does not conform to the requirements set out in section 2, it will not be a Part 1 warrant within the meaning of that section and Part 1 of the Act will not apply to it."
The appellant's case is that the warrant here does not conform to the requirements of section 2.
"This warrant relates to in total: 1 offences.
Description of the circumstances in which the offence(s) was (were) committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence(s) by the requested person:
The accused commissioned at the end of June 2003 Manfred Naumann to collect from his cousin Edwin Gordon in Trinidad a bottle with 422,12 grams cocaine to smuggle it to Germany where the accused intended to sell it with profit. Manfred Naumann was arrested on July 9, 2003 at the airport of Tobago/Trinidad and the cocaine was seized.
Nature and legal classification of the offence(s) and the applicable statutory provision/code:
Jointly attempted impermissible import of narcotic drugs in substantial quantity in coincidence with impermissible trafficking of narcotic drugs in substantial quantity."
"Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought, therefore, to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the texts permit it in order to facilitate extradition."
"It would be unduly strict in these circumstances to insist that a statement must appear in the actual words used in section 2(5) if a European arrest warrant is to qualify as a Part 1 warrant... The purpose of the statute is to facilitate extradition, not to put obstacles in the way of the process which serve no useful purpose but are based on technicalities."
"I agree that it is not necessary for the warrant slavishly to follow the language of the statute, but it must in some way make it clear that the person concerned is at large and unlawfully so."
"The EAW contains the list of 'Framework Offences' following the categories of conduct set out in the proforma. The EAW refers to the circumstances as 'the money... originated out the cigarette smuggling' and identifies with a mark X that the conduct amounts to 'money laundering and the proceeds of crime', but the EAW does not refer to the provision of Belgian law ('statutory provision/code') which renders the conduct an offence under Belgian law. In the usual course, whilst the 2003 Act should not be taken as requiring the text of the law to be recited, section 2(4)(c) of the 2003 Act requires the provision to be identified so that it can be seen that the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under Belgian law. Having considered the warrant, in my judgment, no part of it can be taken as having identified the provision of Belgian law in the manner required under the 2003 Act. As Lord Hope observed... in Cando Armas 'there is no way back for the judicial authority of a category 1 territory...' It follows that since I am satisfied that this warrant does not conform to the requirements set out in section 2 of the 2003 Act, it is not a Part 1 warrant under the 2003 Act and in my judgment the warrant must be quashed."
Mr Smith submits that this court should follow the approach in Hunt which is decisive in his favour.