QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr N Hearn (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
(1) This section applies if a person is arrested under a Part 1 warrant.
(2) A copy of the warrant must be given to the person as soon as practicable after his arrest.
(3) The person must be brought as soon as practicable before the appropriate judge.
(4) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge.
(5) If subsection (3) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge must order his discharge.
(6) A person arrested under the warrant must be treated as continuing in legal custody until he is brought before the appropriate judge under subsection (3) or he is discharged under subsection (4) or (5)."
"16.Mr Atlee tells us this morning that by the first hearing, instructions had not been given as to delay in service of the warrant, and so he was in no position to put forward a case relying on any such assertion. But, as it seems to me, if a fugitive or alleged fugitive, seeks to raise a point under section 4, he must, in my judgment, do so before the case proceeds to issues prescribed to be determined at a later stage.
"17.If an advocate representing a person arrested pursuant to a European arrest warrant considers that there is an open question as to whether there might be an argument under any part of section 4, why then the matter should be looked into and, as I have already said, an adjournment sought if necessary...
"18.More to the point, in my judgment, is the judgment of Richards LJ sitting in this court in Nur and Public Prosecutor Van der Valk  EWHC Admin 1874, holding that an issue of the extraditee's identity which falls to be determined at the initial hearing under section 7 cannot be re-opened at the extradition hearing. Richards LJ said this:
'So far as the extradition hearing is concerned, the first question is whether the District Judge was entitled to refuse to re-open at that hearing the question of identity that had been decided at the initial hearing. In my judgment, he was entitled so to refuse. The statutory scheme is clear. The question of identity falls to be determined at the initial hearing, as was done in this case. If it is resolved in the affirmative, as it was in this case, that leads to the fixing of the extradition hearing where, under the statute, a different series of issues fall to be determined. As regards identity, the statute does not contemplate that there can be a second bite of the cherry at the extradition hearing in respect of the matter dealt with at the initial hearing.'
I respectfully agree. It seems to me that there is a close analogy between the position being dealt with there by Richards LJ and the position here. It is true, of course, that the identity issue is specifically addressed in section 7 of the 2003 Act in the express context of the initial hearing. But, in my judgment, it is a premise of the extradition hearing's being held at all that the section 4 procedures have been completed without the arrested person having been discharged under that section. The extradition hearing procedures are introduced in the statute at section 9. The matters to be dealt with at that hearing are specified in the provisions which follow. It would be wholly incompatible with the statutory scheme as I see it to hold that he appropriate judge might be invited to decide whether, because some earlier decision should have been but was not made, the extradition hearing should take place at all.
"19.It is, I should note, conceded by the respondent that decisions under section 4 may, in a proper case, be examined by way of judicial review or [he adds] habeas corpus. It seems to me that on the assumption that the case is a proper one, that would be the appropriate remedy."
"The European arrest warrant must be translated into the official language or one of the official languages of the executing member state. Any member state may, when this framework decision is adopted, or at a later date, state in a declaration deposited with the General Secretariat of the Council that it will accept a translation in one or more other official languages of the institutions of the European Communities."
The second part of that article enables states to opt to accept translations into languages which are not their own.
"When a requested person is arrested, the executing competent judicial authority shall, in accordance with its national law, inform that person of the European arrest warrant, and of its contents, and also of the possibility of consenting to surrender to the issuing judicial authority."
So, what the framework decision plainly had in mind was the need for the requested person to understand what was in the warrant, rather than necessarily have a copy if it.
"(1)This section applies if the designated authority receives a Part 1 warrant in respect of a person.
(2) A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant which is issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory and which contains..."
The subsection goes on to identify what must be in a warrant. For the purposes of Mr Hawkes' argument, it is important to note that the warrant is the arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority.
The result will be that the appeal must be dismissed.