Nguyen and Hoang v Oldenburg District Court in Germany

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
JudgeMr Justice Collins
Judgment Date19 Mar 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 1423 (Admin)
Docket NumberCO/17403/2013

[2014] EWHC 1423 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr Justice Collins

CO/17403/2013

CO/17404/2013

Between:
Nguyen and Hoang
Appellant
and
Oldenburg District Court in Germany
Respondent

Ms E Lambert (instructed by Lewis Nedas Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Nguyen

Ms T Starr (instructed by Lewis Nedas Solioicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Hoang

Ms H Hinton (instructed by the CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

Mr Justice Collins
1

There are before me two appeals under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 arising from the decision of Senior District Judge Riddle that the appellant should be extradited to Germany in order to stand trial for two offences involving the importation into Germany from the Czech Republic of a significant number of cannabis plants; the purpose being that they would be cultivated in Germany and the resulting cultivation would be the production, of course, of cannabis, no doubt, for sale. The only point that is material so far as this appeal is concerned is an allegation that the warrants in question do not properly specify as they should the offences which are charged and they do not contain the necessary particulars. The approach that should be adopted in these cases was set out in a decision of the divisional court through Cranston J in Ektor v Netherlands [2007] EWHC 3106 (Admin). That has regularly been referred to and relied on as indicating the approach which is that:

"A balance must be struck between the need on the one hand for an adequate description to inform the person and the object of simplifying extradition procedures. The person sought by the warrant needs to know what offence he is said to have committed and have an idea of the nature and extent of the allegations against him in relation to that offence. The amount of detail may turn on the nature of the offence."

2

The warrants in both these appeals are in virtually identical terms. I say virtually because obviously they have to focus each warrant on the individual appellant but, subject to that, the warrant in relation to Mr Hoang so far as material states in part E that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT