Hughes v Swedish Judicial Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Jay |
| Judgment Date | 22 September 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 2707 (Admin) |
| Date | 22 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CO/1590/2019 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2020] EWHC 2707 (Admin)
Mr Justice Jay
No. CO/1590/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr J. Swain appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr T. Hoskins appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
( )
Mr Antony Hughes, a British citizen, appeals against the decision of District Judge Snow, given on 12 April 2019, ordering his extradition to Sweden, pursuant to an European Arrest Warrant (“PAW”) issued on 18 October 2018 by a Swedish prosecutor.
The appellant's surrender is sought in respect of a judgment dated 14 February 2018 in relation to one offence viz that on 23 May 2017 at Lernacken, Malmo, Sweden he:
“… intentionally violated a special ban against, or condition for, this import when he neglected to report 8.55 gms of cocaine to the customs in connection with the import into Sweden on the Øresund Bridge.” (See box E on the EAW).
The appellant received a sentence of four months imprisonment, of which three months and 28 days approximately remains to be served. No issue arises in this appeal regarding the criminal proceedings in Sweden. It is of note that the minimum sentence, in respect of capacity to be extradited, is one of four months imprisonment. The EAW gives the following additional description of the circumstances of the offence. It is alleged that the specified violation was committed “alone, or together and in collusion with others.”
The provisions of relevant Swedish law are provided in the EAW as follows:
“Smuggling of narcotic drugs – section 3, paragraph 1 and section 6, paragraph 1 of the Act on Penalties for Smuggling 2000:1225.”
According to paragraphs 12 to 19 of the appellant's witness statement dated 10 April 2019, which was before the District Judge, he and three others were driving a camper van from Manchester to Sweden in order to watch the UEFA European League final. In Copenhagen they clubbed together to buy approximately £400 worth of cocaine for their personal use, each paying approximately £100. This was to be part of the celebration in the event that Manchester United won. At the Customs' point between Denmark and Sweden, which is on this bridge, officials stopped the van and the cocaine was found secreted in a box of tea bags. According to paragraph 18 of the appellant's witness statement:
“Me and three of my friends all put up our hands and said the drugs were ours. However, the police did not grab and arrest the others they only arrested me. I believe this may have been because I was stood nearest to them. None of the other people there were arrested despite the fact that the drugs were not only mine and had been bought by all four of us. My friends also made this clear to the arresting officers but they did not listen.”
It seems that the appellant's friends were then released.
The first ground of appeal is that the District Judge erred in finding that the offence was sufficiently particularised for the purposes of section 2(6) of the Extradition Act 2003. District Judge Snow held that the EAW does not contain an allegation of conspiracy and that the conduct in question was clearly stated to be the smuggling of 8.55 gms of cocaine into Sweden. Section 2 of the Extradition Act gives effect to Article 8(1) of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. For present purposes the requirement is to specify the nature and legal classification of the offence and 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.
The law in this domain is not disputed. The relevant description need not be detailed but it must be sufficient in order to enable the requesting State and the requested person to invoke any barriers to extradition. As regards conspiracy offences, the requirements of particularity are that it must be clear what the role played by the requested person is (see para. 6 of the judgment of Collins J in Pelka v Regional Court in Gdansk, Poland [2012] EWHC 3989 (Admin)).
Mr Jonathan Swain, for the appellant, advances, in effect, two submissions under this first ground. First, he contends that the EAW alleges a conspiracy but fails to specify the appellant's actual role. By putting the matter in the alternative, the description in the EAW was unclear as to whether this is an offence of conspiracy or commission by a lone individual. Secondly, insofar as the conduct is described, it is said that it is unclear from the description whether the conduct criminalised is: mere possession or importation of the drug, failure to comply with a condition of importation, whether there is a total prohibition on importation or whether there was simply a failure to report the matter. The EAW refers to: “a specific prohibition against all conditions for the importation of such goods.”
In my judgment, these submissions have little force. The primary basis on which the matter was being put against the appellant was that he was a principal offender because he was in possession of the 8.55 gms of cocaine. In my view, given the criminal conviction in Sweden, it is too late for him to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maureen Adebayo v Central Investigtion Court No 3 Madrid (Spain)
...evidence. It is true that in Mlynarik v Czech Republic [2017] EWHC 3312 (Admin) [2018] ACD 16 at §17 and Hughes v Sweden [2020] EWHC 2707 (Admin) at §8, Courts were prepared to derive ‘gap-filling’ assistance from a requested person's own evidence or conduct. Those cases are distinguishab......