Enander v Brixton Prison Governor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 3036 (Admin) |
| Date | 16 November 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2005] EWHC 3036 (Admin)
Court and Reference:Divisional Court, CO/3821/2005
Gage LJ, Openshaw J
Appearances: J Hardy (instructed by Bankside Commercial) for E; P Caldwell and B Gibbins (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Defendant.
Whether the Swedish National Police Board was a "Judicial Authority" for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003.
The Swedish National Police Board, designated a Judicial Authority under the 2003 Act, sought E's extradition in order to serve a term of imprisonment. Sweden was a Category 1 territory under theExtradition Act 2003. E challenged the order for his extradition on the basis that the police could not be a judicial authority for the purposes of the 2003 Act and so the European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") issued by the Swedish National Police Board was invalid.
Gage LJ
1. The applicant in this case applies for a writ of habeas corpus in the following circumstances. The applicant is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant ("an EAW"), issued by the second respondent, the Swedish National Police Board. The contents of that warrant assert that the applicant was, on 23 December 2003, convicted by a court at Svea in Sweden of a variety of offences in respect of which he was sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months. The warrant makes clear that 6 weeks of that term was to be deducted, a period to reflect time served on remand.
2. The EAW also asserts that the applicant is unlawfully at large from his sentence since he did not report to serve it when he was required to do so. The first respondent is the governor of HMP Brixton. The first respondent does not appear and has played no part in these proceedings.
3. The history of the matter is as follows. The EAW was issued on 1 June 2005 by Per-Uno Johannson, who is described as the Superintendent/Head of Sirene, Sweden. This is apparently the Swedish National Police Board.
4. The applicant was arrested in London on the authority of the warrant on the same day on which it was issued, namely 1 June 2005. He was produced at Bow Street Magistrates' Court and remanded on conditional bail to attend an extradition hearing set down for 13 June 2005. However, an application to extend the permitted period within which the extradition hearing must start was made, and time extended so that the hearing in this matter was scheduled to take place before the extradition hearing. An undertaking has been given to the Magistrates' Court to notify it of the result of these proceedings so that, if the applicant is unsuccessful in this application, the date of the outstanding extradition hearing can be brought forward.
5. The EAW was certified on 1 June 2005 pursuant to s. 2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 by the National Criminal Intelligence Service ("NCIS") as having been issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory, which has the function of issuing arrest warrants. The issue in these proceedings is one of jurisdiction. It is contended by the applicant that the second respondent is not a judicial authority and that therefore the EAW is invalid.
6. It is first necessary for me to set out some of the statutory provisions. Throughout I shall refer to the Extradition Act 2003 as the 2003 Act. Section 2 defines a Part 1 warrant. Section 2(2) of the 2003 Act provides, so far as is material, as follows:
"A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant which is issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory and which contains
(a)
(b) the statement referred to in subsection (5) and the information referred to in subsection (6)."
7. Subsection 2(5) of the 2003 Act provides as follows:
"The statement is one that-
(a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence specified in the warrant by a court in the category 1 territory, and
(b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being sentenced for the offence or of serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention imposed in respect of the offence."
It is unnecessary in this judgment to set out the provisions of subs2(6) of the 2003 Act.
8. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minister for Justice, Equality and law Reform v Valdemaras Altaravicius, Respondent (No. 2)
...for purposes of European arrest warrant - CaseC-105/03 Criminal Pupino [2006] QB 83 and Enander v Governor of Brixton Prison [2005] EWHC 3036 (Admin), [2006] 1 CMLR 37 considered - Framework Decision 2005/584/JHA, art 6(1) - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), ss 2 and 4A - Surrender ......
-
Ministry of Justice, Republic of Lithuania v Bucnys
...for the purposes of the 2003 Act. 13 In a number of domestic authorities, the Ministries' analysis has been accepted: Enander v Governor of Brixton Prison [2006] 1 CMLR 999, where Openshaw J thought that any further "inquiry would be attended with considerable practical difficulty, it would......
-
Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority
...have set out at paragraph 4 it did so in this case. 23 In Enander v Governor of HMP Brixton and the Swedish National Police Board [2005] EWHC 3036 (Admin), the Swedish Police Board issued an EAW for the arrest of Enander who had been convicted by a court in Svea and sentenced to a term of ......
-
(1) Ministry of Justice, Lithuania (Appellants) Mindaugas Bucnys (Respondents) Marius Sakalis (Appellants) (2) Ministry of Justice, Republic of Lithuania (Respondents) (3) Dimitri Lavrov (Appellants) Ministry of Justice, Republic of Estonia (Respondents)
...of section 2(7) and (8) has been considered, expressly or impliedly, in five Divisional Court cases: Enander v The Governor of HM Prison Brixton and the Swedish National Police Board , 48 Harmatos v Office of the King's Prosecutor in Dendermonde, Belgium, 49 Assange, 50 Howell v Deputy Atto......
-
‘Surrendering’ the Fugitive—The European Arrest Warrant and the United Kingdom
...Ibid. at [61].95 Peter Von Der Pahlen v Government of Austria [2006] EWHC 1672.96 [2005] EWHC 915.97 [2006] EWHC 74 at [37].98 Ibid.99 [2005] EWHC 3036, [2006] 1 CMLR 100 2007 SLT 14 at 21.101 [2006] EWHC 165, [2006] 2 All ER 735. 378 ‘Surrendering’ the Fugitive—The European Arrest Warrant ......