Peter Taylor v The Public Prosecutor's Office, Berlin, Germany
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Collins J |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 475 (Admin) |
| Date | 14 February 2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/8954/2011 |
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWHC 475 (Admin)
Court and Reference: Administrative Court
Judge: Collins J
CO/8954/2011
Appearances: J Stansfeld (instructed by Kaim Todner Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant; A Wilkes (instructed by the CPS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Issues: Whether the EAW was defective due to non-compliance with s2(4)(c) and s2(4)(d) of the Extradition Act 2003; whether Germany had jurisdiction in relation to an offence committed in the United Kingdom, under s64(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
Facts: T's extradition was sought by Germany. T was alleged to have committed 23 offences of child sexual abuse and one offence of serious child sexual abuse in Germany, along with one offence of serious sexual abuse in England. The offences were alleged to have been committed over a three-year period and two addresses were provided as to the locations for the offences. The EAW specified that the maximum custodial sentence was 15 years. T appealed in the basis that the EAW was defective as the particulars of circumstances in which he was alleged to have committed the offences and the particulars of the sentence were insufficient under s2(4)(c) and s2(4)(d) of the Extradition Act 2003. It was also questioned whether Germany had jurisdiction in relation to the offence committed in the United Kingdom.
1 The appellant was ordered to be extradited to Germany on 14 September 2011 by District Judge Purdy pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant which had been issued by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Berlin on 3 August 2010. He was to face prosecution for 23 offences of sexual abuse of a child and 2 offences of serious sexual abuse of a child. The hearing before the District Judge was uncontested. The arguments, therefore, which have been raised before me were not put before the District Judge, which was unfortunate, but it is clear to me — and the contrary has not been argued by Miss Wilkes — that where it is a question of raising an argument which does not depend upon fresh evidence, this court will deal with that matter even though it was not raised below. After all, we are concerned with the liberty of an individual and it is important, therefore, that points which could properly have been taken which do not require further evidence can be deployed on appeal even though those representing the appellant did not spot the points below.
2 The warrant alleges a number, as is clear, of sets of offences. The details given are short. The warrant states as follows: that the period during which the offences were committed was 1 November 2000 to September 2003. The complainant, or the person against whom the offences were committed, was born on 18 January 1990. She therefore was between the ages of 10 and 13 when these alleged offences were committed. At the time that the offending commenced, the appellant was resident in Berlin and what is alleged is as follows:
‘Sexual acts between the accused and aggrieved born on 18 January 1990 took place on 23 occasions at his home [and the address is given] and at the home and at the home of the aggrieved party's mother [and that address is given] in Berlin. He stroked the aggrieved party's vagina over and underneath her clothes with his hand and penetrated the vagina with his finger several times and gave her French kisses. In another case, the accused tried to penetrate the vagina of the aggrieved party who was lying on top of him with his penis but was not successful.
During the summer holidays 2003 when the aggrieved stayed with the accused in England, he had sexual intercourse with the aggrieved who was sitting on top of him by penetrating her vagina with his penis.
Degree of involvement: Perpetrator.’
3 The nature and legal classification of the offences is described as: ‘Sexual abuse of children in 23 cases and serious sexual abuse of children in 2 cases.’ The applicable statutory provisions are s176, para 1; 176a para 2, number 1; and s53 of the German Criminal Code. The maximum length of the custodial sentence which may be imposed for the offences is given as 15 years, and the framework offence ticked is: ‘Sexual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irinel Edutanu v Iasi Court of Law
...a general nature" that was before it. 48 Finally, I refer to three cases which considered the Multiple Offences Order; Taylor v Public Prosecutors Office Berlin, Germany [2012] EWHC 475 (Admin), Kubun v District Court of Warzawa, Poland [2012] EWHC 3036 (Admin) and Polczynski v The Regional......
-
Marek Lewicki v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy
...Its effect is to “ require the court to consider the validity of the individual offences in the warrant” – see e.g. Taylor v Germany [2012] EWHC 475 (Admin) at [8]. x) Under s.2(3)(a) of the EA the court is concerned with the foreign “ offence specified in the [Part 1] warrant”, and all su......
-
Asad Al-Jaban v Court of First Instance in Antwerp (Belgium)
...to Belgium v Cando-Armas [2006] 2 AC 1; Dabas v Spain [2007] 2 AC 31; Ektor v Holland [2007] EWHC 3106 (Admin); Taylor v Germany [2012] EWHC 475 (Admin); Poland v Sabramowicz [2012] EWHC 3878 (Admin); Alexander & Di Benedetto v France & Italy [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin); FK v Germany [201......
-
Rehan Malik v Public Prosecutors Office in Augsberg, Germany
...offences. This requires the appropriate judge to consider the requirements imposed by section 2 for each offence, Taylor v Germany [2012] EWHC 475 (Admin). This provision means that the requesting state may withdraw its request for certain offences but proceed to seek extradition on the ba......