Louca v Public Prosecutor, Bielefeld, Germany
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD MANCE,LORD KERR,LORD COLLINS,LORD HOPE,LORD RODGER |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] UKSC 4 |
| Date | 19 November 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
[2009] UKSC 4
Lord Hope, Deputy President
Lord Rodger
Lord Mance
Lord Collins
Lord Kerr
Appellant
Conor Quigley QC
John R W D Jones
(Instructed by Cartwright King Solicitors)
Respondent
James Lewis QC
Daniel Jones
(Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service)
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion which has been prepared by Lord Mance, and I agree with it. For the reasons he gives, I would dismiss the appeal.
I too have had the advantage of considering in draft the opinion prepared by Lord Mance. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I would dismiss the appeal.
The appellant, Mr Louca, is a Cypriot national whose arrest in England and surrender to the Federal Republic of Germany for trial of six alleged offences of tax evasion is sought by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Bielefeld pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant dated 14 July 2008. The warrant was on that date certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency ("SOCA") pursuant to s.2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003. Mr Louca challenges its validity on the ground that it contains no reference to two previous European arrest warrants (likewise certified by SOCA), but refers only to a domestic German arrest warrant. A reference to any previous European arrest warrants, was, he submits, essential under s.2(2)(a) and (4)(b) of the 2003 Act, which, read together, require a warrant to contain "particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence". Senior District Judge Workman rejected Mr Louca's challenge on 11 September 2008, and the Divisional Court, in a judgment given by Dyson LJ, dismissed his appeal on 27 November 2008.
The two previous European arrest warrants were issued and in turn superseded in a manner that appears not uncommon in relation to requests by overseas authorities for the arrest of suspects in England. The first warrant was dated 14 September 2006 and led to Mr Louca's arrest on 9 April 2008. Shortly thereafter it was withdrawn, Mr Louca was discharged from further proceedings on it, and a second warrant dated 23 April 2008 was issued on which Mr Louca was again arrested on 25 April 2008. That warrant amplified the description of Mr Louca's alleged involvement in the offences and contained other minor changes. It was in turn withdrawn, Mr Louca was again discharged from any proceedings on it, and it was replaced by the subsisting warrant dated 14 July 2008, upon which Mr Louca was again arrested and which is now before the Supreme Court. The wording of the subsisting warrant differs from that of the second warrant only in the insertion of the words which I have italicised in the time-frame and places of commission given for the alleged offences: "From a few days before the 23rd April 2003, till the 8th of April 2004" and "Minden, Seckenhausen and other places in the Federal Republic of Germany, including the borders of Germany".
Part I of the 2003 Act, in which s.2 appears, falls to 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 of the European Union (2002/584/JHA; OJ 2002 L190, pi). This is a "ground-breaking measure intended to simplify and expedite procedures for the surrender, between member states, of those accused of crime committed in other member states or required to be sentenced or serve sentences for such crimes following conviction in other member states": Dabas v High Court of Justice of Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6; [2007] 2 AC 31, para. 4, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Although article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union makes framework decisions "binding upon member states as to the result to be achieved but [leaves] to national authorities the choice of form and methods", a national court must interpret a national law "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)": para. 5, per Lord Bingham citing Criminal Proceedings against Pupino ( Case C-105/03); 62003CJ0105"> [2006] QB 83, paras. 43 and 47.
The Framework Decision provides inter alia:
Article 1(1): The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.
…..
Article 2(1): A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.
……"
Article 8(1): The European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in accordance with the form contained in the Annex:
(a) the identity and nationality of the requested person;
(b) the name, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of the issuing judicial authority;
(c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of Articles 1 and 2;
(d) the nature and legal classification of the offence, particularly in respect of Article 2;
(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;
(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;
(g) if possible, other consequences of the offence."
The annexed form contains boxes for completion, including:
(b) Decision on which warrant is based:
1. Arrest warrant or judicial decision having the same effect: …..
Type:……..
2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dariuz Przybysz v Regional Court Szczecin Poland
...for the following reasons. The relevant issue was considered in the Supreme Court in the appeal of Louca v A German Judicial Authority [2009] UKSC 4. The issue was formulated by Lord Mance in a speech (with which the other justices of the Supreme Court agreed) in the following terms: "Wheth......
-
R Tibor v Judicial Authority Hungary
...of the offence." 3 The question as to what was meant by "any other warrant" was considered by the Supreme Court in Louca v Germany [2009] 1 WLR 2550. I should also refer specifically to Article 8.1 (c) which provides as follows: "(1) The European arrest warrant shall contain the following i......
-
Minister for Justice and Equality v Kenneth Brunell
...by the series of decisions that culminated in the decision of the House of Lords in Louca v Public Prosecutor, Bielefeld, Germany [2009] 1 WLR 2550. Only in that case was it appreciated that the provision referred to "any domestic warrant on which the European warrant is based" per Lord Man......
-
Ministry of Justice, Republic of Lithuania v Bucnys
...they could have used specific wording like "such warrants" or "such a warrant". Further, as the House of Lords held in Louca v Public Prosecutor, Bielefeld, Germany [2009] UKSC 4, [2009] 1 WLR 2550, the words "any other warrant" in section 2(4) do refer to any domestic arrest warrant that......