Johnson v State Prosecutor At the Tribunal De Grande Instance De Lille France
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER,MR JUSTICE CRANSTON |
| Judgment Date | 12 October 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 2830 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/5247/2009 CO/5287/2009,CO/5247/2009, CO/5287/2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 12 October 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 2830 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: Lord Justice Scott Baker
And
Mr Justice Cranston
CO/5247/2009 CO/5287/2009
Mr M Jones (instructed by The Solicitors' Chambers Pontefract WF8 1DA) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Johnson and (instructed by John Jones & Co, Hemworth WF0 4PU) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Stevens
Miss C Bramwell (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondents
Monday 12 October 2009
Mr Justice Cranston will give the first judgment.
MR JUSTICE CRANSTON:
These are appeals under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) against a decision of District Judge Evans to order the extradition of the appellants. That part of the 2003 Act implements the European Community Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA).
The appeals concern two European Arrest Warrants issued by a French judicial authority under Part 1 of the 2003 Act. The first warrant refers to Paul Johnson; the second to Martin Stevens. Both relate to a criminal prosecution for two offences of complicity in the importation of drugs through organised crime and complicity in the importation in contraband of prohibited goods. The warrants have been issued by an associate prosecutor at the Lille Magistrates' Court.
Both warrants have the following introductory passage. In English translation it reads as follows:
“The present warrant has been issued by a competent judicial authority. I request that the person mentioned hereunder be arrested and handed over to the judicial authorities for the purposes of conducting criminal prosecution or in executing a custodial sentence or executing a detention order.”
The warrants go on to indicate the duration of any sentence. The maximum specified is 30 years' imprisonment for the importation under contraband of prohibited goods through organised crime, and 10 years' imprisonment for the smuggling of prohibited goods. Complicity is punishable “with the same sentence” as a result of the French penal code.
Under the heading “Description of the circumstances in which the offences were committed, including the date and time, the place and the involvement of the persons wanted”, the warrant for Paul Johnson records that on 25 September 2008 French customs officials were on inspection duties at a border post with Belgium when a Citroen C3 vehicle drove off at high speed. The warrant explains that, following a car chase, the customs officials picked up two bags containing 28 kilos of cocaine and 5.7 kilos of heroin which had been thrown out onto the road. A few hours later the customs officials found the vehicle and apprehended the driver, Robert Briscoe, and his passenger, Anthony Johnson (who is no relation to Paul Johnson, named in the warrant). The warrant recalls that Anthony Johnson explained about the importation of narcotic drugs. He told the officers that that day a bus driver named Wayne from the Clarkson Coach Company at Pontefract was to transport drugs to Britain.
On the same day the customs officers inspected a bus driven by Wayne McNulty. They found 89.4 kilos of heroin in the baggage hold. Anthony Johnson and Robert Briscoe, who were both former drivers from the Clarkson Coach Company, indicated that they acted on behalf of Paul Johnson. They also admitted having undertaken several trips on behalf of Paul Johnson or Michael France. Anthony Johnson estimated having transported drugs on seven or eight occasions. According to the drivers, Paul Johnson had set up an independent drug trafficking enterprise for some months after a difference of opinion with Michael France. The drivers confirmed in front of the investigating judge their implication of Paul Johnson and Michael France as silent partners in the drug trafficking.
The warrant in relation to the appellant, Martin Stevens, essentially tracks that for Paul Johnson. However, a further person is introduced, namely Malcolm Tingey, who was with McNulty and was Martin Stevens' associate in a taxi company in England. Tingey explained that McNulty had been successively contacted by Martin Stevens and Michael France. McNulty admitted having undertaken five trips transporting drugs since April 2008 on behalf of Martin Stevens, for the payments of £250 to £1,000. He made clear that he thought he was transporting amphetamines. The warrant records that the French investigators had checked certain telephones and it was possible to confirm the numerous telephone contacts between Martin Stevens, Wayne McNulty and Michael France on 25 September 2008. I note that the warrant in relation to Stevens is thus to be contrasted with that for Paul Johnson, where there is no assertion that telephone calls link him (Johnson) with the other persons arrested.
Both warrants then set out the nature of the offences: both appellants are accused of complicity in the importation of drugs through organised crime, along with each other, Anthony Johnson, Michael France and Robert Briscoe, and complicity in the importation in contraband of prohibited goods, contrary to certain provisions of the French Penal Code and the French Customs Code.
The appellants were arrested in this country on 19 January 2009. They appeared at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. The case was adjourned on a number of occasions. Both appellants have been on bail.
On 21 April 2009 a letter from the French authorities was sent to Stevens' solicitor, under cover of a letter from the CPS. That letter said (in English translation):
“Following execution of the European Arrest Warrant [the defendant] will be questioned at an initial court hearing and an initial report will be drawn up by the judge dealing with the release and detention of prisoners.
In the case of a committal order being issued by the judge dealing with the release and detention of prisoners, the subject will be placed in preventative custody ….”
The Vice-President of the Lille Court confirmed on 4 May 2009 that, following their arrest, Anthony Johnson and Robert Briscoe had been remanded in custody on 29 September 2008, where they had remained pending a hearing of the case. A date for that had not been fixed. On 26 May District Judge Evans ordered the extradition of both appellants.
The appeal before us turns on one ground, namely that the warrant is defective in failing to comply with section 2(3)(b) of the 2003 Act, in that it does not contain an unequivocal statement that the appellants are wanted for the purpose of being prosecuted in France. Section 2(3) of the Act provides:
(3) The statement is one that —
(a) the person in respect of whom the warrant is issued is accused of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant, and
(b) the warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence.”
The accusation warrant of section 2(3) is to be contrasted with the conviction warrant in section 2(5), where someone is unlawfully at large.
The introductory paragraph of the warrants in this case, which I have quoted, are unclear. The person who drew them up has not struck out one of the two alternatives, whether it is an accusation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asztalos v Szeksard City Court
...two further decisions to which we wish to refer. The first case actually involved two appellants. It is Paul Johnson v State Prosecutor at the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille and Martin Christopher Joseph Stevens v Judicial Authority of the Government of France [2009] EWHC 2830. The ap......