Herba v Italian Judicial Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Sharp |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 3211 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/4501/2017 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 15 May 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 3211 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Lady Justice Sharp DBE
Mrs Justice Carr DBE
CO/4501/2017
APPEARANCES
Mr M Summers QC and Mr G Hepburne-Scott appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Miss Fiveson appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Introduction
The appellant is a Polish national aged 37 years. There is a single ground of appeal for us to consider, namely whether District Judge Goldspring was correct to order the appellant's extradition pursuant to a European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by the respondent on 1August 2017 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 12 August 2017, specifically whether or not the district judge was right to conclude that the EAW satisfied the requirements of s.2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.
The appellant is currently in custody following his arrest in the United Kingdom on 1 August 2017. According to the Italian authorities, pre-trial custody terms will expire on 1 August 2018 if a decree for the appellant's committal for trial cannot be issued by an Italian judge by then. To achieve this, they have requested the appellant's return by the end of this month otherwise the appellant, once in Italy, would be released immediately.
The EAW
The EAW relates to an allegation of kidnapping arising out of events between 11 July and 17 July 2017. The appellant is alleged to have acted “in complicity” with his brother and other identified persons, drugging and kidnapping the victim in Milan and requesting €300,000 in ransom money. Box E reads:
“… kidnapping for the purposes of ransom (Art.630 of the Criminal Code) [the appellant] in complicity with his brother [Lukasz Pawel Herba] … and with unidentified persons deprived the British national (Chloe Ayling) … from 11 July to 17 July 2017 of her freedom with a view to obtaining an undue profit as the price for her release. In particular, [Chloe Ayling] after being drugged was kidnapped in Milan, via Bianconi, and carried to Lemie … where she was kept until 17 July 2017. During this period the kidnappers asked the sum of €300,000 as the price to release her and tried to obtain this sum from persons indicated by the victim, including [Paul McCarthy and David Reidaplin].”
Following the grant of permission to appeal by Ouseley J on 22 December 2017, questions were put to the respondent in relation to Box E and responded to on 9 February 2018 as follows:
“… From the investigations carried out in Italy, it results that Michal Herba has played an active role at all stages of the kidnapping.
• He organised the kidnapping by bringing the car near the place where the victim was attacked. [There are images from Milan CCTV cameras of the preparatory steps of the kidnapping where the two brothers are recorded while preparing the place where the attack has occurred in Milan, via Bianconi 7. These images were projected in the court room on 7 February at the trial against Herba, Lukasz.] He brought in via Bianconi the luggage where the victim had been locked.
• He took part together with his brother Lukasz in the execution of a kidnapping by attacking the victim in via Bianconi and he drugged her.
• He transported the victim locked in the trunk of the car from Milan to Lemie, a remote mountain village place near Turin.
• He was in Lemie for a few days with the handcuffed victim.
• He advised his brother on ways to behave with the victim during her kidnapping.”
Section 2(4)(c) of the 2003 Act
A Part 1 warrant (which this is said to be) is a warrant issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory -
“and which contains -
(a) the statement referred to in subsection (3) and the information referred to in subsection (4),
…
(3) The statement is one that -
(a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is accused in the category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant, 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 prosecuted for the offence.
(4) 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.”
Section 2(4)(c) gives effect to Art.8(1)(e) of the Framework Decision which provides:
“The European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in accordance with the form contained in the Annex …
…
(e) a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person...
To continue reading
Request your trial