Office of Public Prosecutor of Hamburg, Germany v Hughes [Administrative Court]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 2009 |
| Date | 26 February 2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Administrative Court, CO/9327/2008
Sir Anthony May P, Silber J
D Jones (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the German Judicial Authority; M Summers (instructed by Shaw, Graham, Kersch Solicitors) for H.
Whether the reference in s2(3)(b) Extradition Act 2003 to "any other warrant" referred to any other domestic warrant or any other European Arrest Warrant; whether a decision on that point of law (Louca) had prospective effect only; and whether the Notice of Appeal was invalid because it was not endorsed with the correct date of arrest.
H's extradition was sought by a German Judicial Authority for tax offences. He was arrested and detained on a European Arrest Warrant (the 1st EAW) which was revoked in favour of another one (the 2nd EAW) for the same offences. H had spent 11 days in custody on the 1st EAW. He was later re-arrested on the 2nd EAW. At the Extradition Hearing, the District Judge discharged H because the 2nd EAW did not contain particulars of the 1st one, which he held breached s2(3)(b) Extradition Act 2003. The Judicial Authority appealed; H also argued that the Notice of Appeal was invalid as it had not been endorsed with the correct date of H's arrest (as required by para 22.6A(3)(b) of CPR Part 52 Practice Direction).
Sir Anthony May P:
1. This is the Judgment of the Court.
2. It is regrettable if inconsequential technical failures to comply with mechanical requirements of Part I of the Extradition Act 2003 have the effect of impeding the underlying parliamentary intention that European Arrest Warrants should be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency - see Art 17 of the European Framework Decision on Extradition whose provisions Part I of the 2003 Act implemented. Strict compliance with some such requirement may be necessary - see for example Mucelli v Government of Albania[2009] Extradition Law Reports 122. But the court is generally disinclined from enforcing strict compliance where the legislation permits the exercise of discretion and prejudice to a defendant is slight or not apparent.
3. Two technical failures have arisen in these proceedings and are relied on in support of the submission that Leonard Hughes, the respondent, should be discharged from arrest under a European Arrest Warrant issued on 19 December 2006 by the appellant Public Prosecutor in Hamburg for alleged offences relating to tax in 1998 and 1999.
4. The prosecutor first issued a European Arrest Warrant for the arrest of Mr Hughes on 28 November 2006. This was, for some reason, revoked on 19 December 2006, on which day a second European Arrest Warrant was issued for the same offences. The first warrant had, however, been transmitted to the Serious Organised Crime Agency in this jurisdiction who were not at first aware that it had been revoked. Mr Hughes was arrested pursuant to this first (revoked) warrant on 7 August 2008. But he was released from this arrest on 18 August 2008, having spent 11 days in custody, when the authorities learned that the warrant had been revoked. He was arrested again on 8 September 2008 pursuant to the second warrant of 19 December 2006.
5. On 26 September 2008, at an extradition hearing in the City of Westminster Magistrates Court, District Judge Purdy discharged Mr Hughes upon a finding that the European Arrest Warrant of 19 December 2006 was not valid because it did not contain particulars of the European Arrest Warrant of 28 November 2006. This is the first technicality relied on. The prosecutor appeals against this decision. Subject to matters discussed later in this judgment, it is agreed that in this court DJ Purdy's decision is now seen to be wrong because, since his decision, dicta which he applied have been authoritatively determined to be wrong.
6. Section 2(4) of the 2003 Act requires a Part I warrant to contain "particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person's arrest in respect of the offence". There was an issue whether "any other warrant" included any other European Arrest Warrant, or whether it referred only to a domestic warrant within the category 1 territory. DJ Purdy decided that it included any other European Arrest Warrant with reference to dicta of Dyson LJ in Jaso v Central Criminal Court No 2, Madrid[2008]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lukaszewski and Others v The District Court in Torun, Poland and Others (No 3)
...has been allowed as to the form of the notice include the following. In Office of Public Prosecutor of Hamburg, Germany v Hughes[2009] Extradition LR 149, this court (Sir Anthony May President and Silber J) deployed rule 3.10 to correct the omission of the appellant's date of arrest from th......
-
Lukaszewski and Others v The District Court in Torun, Poland and Others (No 2)
...rules to have proved contentious. One line of authority has taken a relaxed view of the statutory requirements. In Office of Public Prosecutor of Hamburg, Germany v Hughes [2009] EWHC 279 (Admin), the court, rightly in my view, treated as a mere procedural error, which could be corrected, ......
-
Nanarova v District Court in Usti Nad Labem Czech Republic
...could be cited to support that proposition. Perhaps the most recent is Kucera v District Court of Karvina, Czech Republic[2009] Extradition LR 149. There a Czech court issued a European Arrest Warrant seeking the defendant's extradition in relation to an offence of failing to pay maintenanc......
-
Regional Court in Konin, Poland v Walerianczyk
...in minor ways that are capable of being condoned under CPR r.3.10. Thus in Office of Public Prosecution Hamburg, Germany v Hughes[2009] Extradition LR 149 the Appellant's notice had failed to include the date on which the appellant had been arrested, contrary to CPR 52PD para 22.6A(3)(b). T......