England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		22 April 2015

1. MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE: The Appellant appeals against the decision of District Judge McPhee made on 12 February 2015 ordering his extradition to Germany on a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued on 9 May 2014 and certified by the NCA on 10 July 2014.

1. The Appellant's extradition is sought to serve a sentence of 3 years and 3 months less 185 days on remand following a trial and a judgment dated 16 April 2013.
2. There is one ground of appeal. It is that the warrant does not comply with section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003 as it does not give sufficient particulars of conviction.
3. The District Judge himself described the warrant as "clumsy" and conceded that it required some time to consider. Ms Bhatt for the Appellant notes that it is clear that the offences were not continuing offences, but rather individual offences which took place on a certain date in a certain location. She submits that the Appellant has no way of easily marrying these up on the face of the warrant.
4. In particular, Ms Bhatt makes five points. First, that the first paragraph of the facts, Box E of the warrant, fails to particularise dates, times, locations or the Appellant's specific role in organising the shoplifting referred to.
5. The second paragraph of the facts fails to name the Appellant, does not identify his role and gives no particular details of the 23 separate incidents of shoplifting referred to.
6. The third paragraph again does not name the Appellant, identify his role or the location of the offence. She submits it is unclear what the agreement is supposed to be and what illegal activity the Appellant is said to have done.
7. The fourth paragraph again does not name the Appellant, identify his role or give dates or locations for the 11 separate incidents of shoplifting referred to.
8. Finally, the final paragraph refers to a fraud by misrepresentation, but does not identify the Appellant or state his role or where the offence occurred.
9. I reject these submissions. I do not accept that a proper reading of the relevant material requires the intricate analysis that is suggested.
10. The first paragraph in Box E states that the Appellant conspired with his father and brother. Throughout this section, he is referred to as "the Defendant". I agree with Mr Seifert for the Respondent that the first two sentences are a descriptive introduction of the conduct, which is then particularised in greater detail in the following sentences.
11. The conduct which took place on 11 February 2012 is sufficiently particularised, in my view, in that it states that the Defendants, including the Appellant, took part in shoplifting. The property is stolen, the date and place of the offence are all identified.
12. There are 38 offences which are described in Box E. The first set of offending took place on 11 February 2012 when the Appellant with his accomplices shoplifted four Apple iPads worth a total value of 1,769 Euros from Saturn in Düsseldorf.
13. From 15 August 2012 until 17 October 2012, the Defendants, including the Appellant, ordered two other persons to commit 23 cases of shoplifting in shops in Dortmund and other cities.
14. On 30 October 2012, a man named Olech, having conspired with the Defendants, stole goods totalling 156.94 Euros. Ms Bhatt observes the location of offence is not identified. However, all the offences took place in Germany and I accept Mr Seifert's submission that there is no requirement for the specific location to be identified.
15. Between 2 and 26 November 2012, the Defendants instructed two men to commit a total of 11 cases of shoplifting in Dortmund and other cities. The majority of the goods stolen consisted of high end electronic devices or electric toothbrushes and cosmetics.
16. Finally, on 1 December 2012, the Defendants sold a Mercedes Benz, Z320 CDI, having reset the tachometer to the detriment of the purchaser, in the sum of 2,500 Euros.
17. Box D of the EAW indicates that the Appellant appeared in person at the trial. The legal principles relating to the validity of the warrant are not in issue.
18. I have been referred by counsel in particular to the leading case of Sandi v The Craiova Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 3079 and to the judgment of Hickinbottom J, in particular at paragraph 34.
19. The Appellant was present at his trial and will have been aware of the conduct of which he was convicted. He was given an aggregated sentence.
20. Whilst the judge erroneously referred to the requirements of section 2(4)(c) instead of 2(6)(b), I am satisfied that his conclusions were correct.
21. Accordingly, for the reasons I have given, this appeal is dismissed.
22. Thank you both very much.