Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
JudgeLORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL,LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD,LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD,LORD MANCE,LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE
Judgment Date28 February 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] UKHL 6

[2007] UKHL 6

HOUSE OF LORDS

Appellate Committee

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Scott of Foscote

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Lord Mance

Dabas
(Appellant)
and
High Court of Justice, Madrid
(Respondent)

(Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice)

Appellants:

Clare Montgomery QC

Mark Summers

(Instructed by Ahmed & Co)

Respondents:

David Perry QC

John Hardy

(Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service)

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

My Lords,

1

The High Court of Justice of Madrid seeks the surrender of the appellant, Mr Dabas, to face a criminal charge of complicity in Islamic terrorism in connection with the Madrid train bombings of 11 March 2004. It has issued a European arrest warrant, pursuant to which District Judge Anthony Evans, sitting in the Bow Street Magistrates' Court, ordered the surrender of the appellant. The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Latham LJ and Jack J) affirmed that decision: [2006] EWHC 971 (Admin); [2007] 1 WLR 145.

2

The appellant resists surrender on three grounds. For reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, whose summary of the relevant materials and provisions I gratefully adopt, I would reject the appellant's arguments based on the second and third grounds. On those I have nothing to add. I have felt more doubt about the first issue raised by the appellant, which is whether the certificate referred to in section 64(2)(b) and (c) of the Extradition Act 2003 can be the European arrest warrant itself.

3

Interpreting section 64(2)(b) and (c) in isolation, I would understand the section to require the issue by "an appropriate authority of the category 1 territory" of something amounting to a certification that the conduct described in the warrant falls within the European framework list (paragraph (b)) and that the conduct is punishable under the law of the category 1 territory with imprisonment or detention for 3 years or more (paragraph (c)). Whether or not the language "I hereby certify" were used, I would understand the subsection to require a statement to such effect: that is the ordinary meaning of "certificate", and that is the sense in which I understand the expression to be used elsewhere in the Act (see sections 2(7), 17(7), 40(1), 54(3), 56(3), 58(3) and 70(8)). If the authority designated by the Secretary of State under section 2(9) has certified that the foreign authority which issued the Part 1 warrant has the function of issuing warrants in the category 1 territory, and the certificate required by section 64(2)(b) and (c) is contained within the warrant itself, it is difficult to see how the appropriate judge in this country, performing his duty under section 66(2), could do other than believe that the certificate had been issued by a judicial authority of the category 1 territory which had the function of issuing arrest warrants in that territory. The inference that section 64(2)(b) and (c) envisages a separate certificate is strengthened by the reference in section 142(3), not found in section 64(2)(b) and (c), to an arrest warrant "which contains" a certificate. The appellant's argument on the construction of this domestic statute, skilfully advanced by Miss Montgomery QC, has considerable force.

4

But Part 1 of the 2003 Act must be read in the context of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states (2002/584/JHA; OJ 2002 L190, p 1). This was conceived and adopted as a ground-breaking measure intended to simplify and expedite procedures for the surrender, between member states, of those accused of crimes committed in other member states or required to be sentenced or serve sentences for such crimes following conviction in other member states. Extradition procedures in the past had been disfigured by undue technicality and gross delay. There is to be substituted "a system of surrender between judicial authorities" and "a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters" (recital (5) of the preamble to the Framework Decision). This is to implement the principle of mutual recognition which the Council has described as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation (recital (6)). The important underlying assumption of the Framework Decision is that member states, sharing common values and recognising common rights, can and should trust the integrity and fairness of each other's judicial institutions.

5

By article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union, reflecting the law on directives in article 249 of the EC Treaty, framework decisions are binding on member states as to the result to be achieved but leave to national authorities the choice of form and methods. In its choice of form and methods a national authority may not seek to frustrate or impede achievement of the purpose of the decision, for that would impede the general duty of cooperation binding on member states under article 10 of the EC Treaty. Thus while a national court may not interpret a national law contra legem, it must "do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the framework decision in order to attain the result which it pursues and thus comply with article 34(2)(b) EU" (Criminal proceedings against Pupino 62003CJ0105"> (Case C – 105/03) [2006] QB 83, paras 43, 47).

6

The wording of the Framework Decision makes no reference to a "certificate" as to the matters specified in section 64(2)(b) and (c) of the 2003 Act. But it does in article 8 require a European arrest warrant to contain "(d) the nature and legal classification of the offence, particularly in respect of Article 2", and it is article 2 which lists the offences for which no verification of double criminality is required ("the framework list"). Article 8 also requires a European arrest warrant to contain "(f) the penalty imposed, if there is a final judgment, or the prescribed scale of penalties for the offence under the law of the issuing Member State". This information must be set out in accordance with the form contained in the annex to the decision. The annex sets out the framework list, with provision for identification of any offence relied on which is punishable by imprisonment or detention for at least 3 years. The warrant is to be signed by or on behalf of the issuing judicial authority.

7

The arrest warrant issued in the present case met the formal requirements of the Framework Decision. It identified terrorism in the framework list as the offence, punishable by imprisonment or detention for at least 3 years, to be charged against the appellant. It was issued by a competent judicial authority in Spain, and signed by a judge acting as such. The issuing authority has been certified by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, then the authority designated by the Secretary of State for purposes of Part 1 of the 2003 Act under section 2(9) of the Act, to be a judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants in Spain.

8

The short question is whether this arrest warrant, complying with the formal requirements of the Framework Decision, is invalid under the 2003 Act because there is no separate certificate, and no express certification, to the effect specified in section 64(2)(b) and (c). If it is, the effect of the Act would be to introduce a requirement not found in the Framework Decision and thereby to impede, to some extent, achievement of the purpose of the Framework Decision, by reintroducing an element of technicality which the Framework Decision is intended to banish and by frustrating the intention that a warrant in common form should be uniformly acceptable in all member states. Happily, as I think, the House is not driven to that conclusion, since I consider that the Spanish judge, by signing the warrant, has given his authority to and thereby vouched the accuracy of its contents. Thus the warrant is in substance if not in form a certification by the judge. It would be inconsistent with the trust and respect assumed to exist between judicial authorities to insist on any additional verification, which would impede the process of surrender but do nothing to protect the rights of the appellant.

9

For these reasons, as well as those given by Lord Hope, I would dismiss this appeal.

LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD

My Lords,

10

On 17 March 2005 a European arrest warrant was issued by the Central Court of Committal Proceedings, No 6, High Court of Justice, Madrid, for the extradition of the appellant, Moutaz Almallah Dabas, to Spain. The decision on which the warrant was based was an order by Judge Juan del Olmo Galvez that the appellant should be subject to unconditional temporary imprisonment to await his trial for the offence of collaboration with an Islamist terrorist organisation in connection with explosions that took place in four trains in Madrid, with much loss of life, on 11 March 2004.

11

The validity of the warrant falls to be determined under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. This is the measure by which the United Kingdom has transposed into national law the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/548/JHA; OJ 2002 L 190, p1). Spain was designated as a Category 1 territory pursuant to section 1 of the 2003 Act by the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003 (SI 2003/3333).

12

The warrant was in the form which the Framework Decision provides for a European arrest warrant. It was signed by Judge Galvez himself as the issuing judicial authority. It was accompanied by a translation into English. As translated, it contains a statement that the maximum length of the custodial sentence which may be imposed for the offence is from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
124 cases
  • Goluchowski and Sas v District Court and Circuit Court in Poland
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 Junio 2016
    ...rather than substantive, defects appearing in an EAW that article 15 of the Framework Decision contemplates. 46 In Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6; [2007] 2 AC 31, para 50, Lord Hope expressed the view, which with other members of the House including myself co......
  • Oprynski v Regional Court in Lublin Poland
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 11 Noviembre 2013
    ...an offence known to English law. That is not a good point, since on the authority of cases such as Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid [2007] UKHL 6 one needs to look at the factual narrative of what is alleged in Box E of the arrest warrant, rather than the label placed by the foreign co......
  • Peter Roope v District Court for Prague 1, Czech Republic
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 13 Agosto 2014
    ...the integrity and fairness of each other's judicial institutions": Lord Bingham in Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] 2 AC 31 at [4]. The court which has to decide on Mr Roope's return to the Czech Republic whether he should be granted bail will, no doubt, take into ......
  • Sean Alexander v The Public Prosecutor's Office, Marseille District Court of First Instance, France
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 15 Junio 2017
    ...a conviction warrant the Supreme Court followed Bob-Dogi, but did not disapprove of the decision of the House of Lords in Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid [2007] 2 AC 31. A narrow interpretation of Goluchowski is appropriate and would be consistent with Dabas, appropriately so since d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • A sledgehammer to crack a nut? Should there be a bar of triviality in European Arrest Warrant cases?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 29 Julio 2010
    ...Criminal Procedure. Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] 2 AC 1; Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] 2 AC 31. Article 2.2 of the now defunct Treaty of Lisbon stated: "The [European] Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security ......
  • Challenging the European Arrest Warrant
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 11 Julio 2010
    ...Sgueglia C–403/09, 23 December 2009 and Kükükdeveci v Swedex C–555/07, 19 January 2010. Criminal proceedings against Pupino [2006] QB 83. [2007] 2 AC 31. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your s......
4 books & journal articles
  • Governing through crime — the case of the European Union
    • United Kingdom
    • European Journal of Criminology Nbr. 7-3, May 2010
    • 1 Mayo 2010
    ...v Judge for Preliminary Investigations of the Court of Naples, Italy [2008] UKHL 51.Dabas v High court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6.Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland [2008] UKHL 7.European Union legal instruments and legislationCharter of Fundamental Rights of the Euro......
  • Note on the Reference in Case C-399/11 Melloni
    • United Kingdom
    • New Journal of European Criminal Law Nbr. 3-1, March 2012
    • 1 Marzo 2012
    ...Radu) should clarif y this.12 Cited above, note 6.13 Ibid., paragraph 43.14 See, for inst ance, Dabas v High Cou rt of Justice, Madr id [2007] UKHL 6.15 Cases C-288/05 Kretzinger, Case C-297/07 Bourquain and C-261/09 Mantello were all references relating to the E AW FD and the ne bis princ ......
  • Local law repercussions on EU extradition law
    • United Kingdom
    • New Journal of European Criminal Law Nbr. 8-2, June 2017
    • 1 Junio 2017
    ...para 8.26. Dabas (Appellant) v. High Court of Justice, Madrid (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court ofJustice) [2007] UKHL 6, para 76.122 New Journal of European Criminal Law discharge. While this section has proved to be an essential protection for requested persons(p......
  • The European Arrest Warrant
    • United Kingdom
    • New Journal of European Criminal Law Nbr. 1-1, March 2010
    • 1 Marzo 2010
    ...in Criminal proceedings again st Pupino (Case C – 105/03) [2006] 1 QB 83, pp109–110 and applied by the House of Lords in Dabas v Spain [2007] UKHL 6:[A] national authority may not seek to frust rate or impede achievement of the purpose of the decision, for that wou ld impede the general dut......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT