Republic Of Croatia v Ivica Todoric
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Criminal |
| Court | Magistrates' Court |
1
IN THE WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT
BETWEEN
THE COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE
REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
Judicial Authority (“JA”)
v.
IVICA TODORIC
Requested Person (“RP”)
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. The County State Attorney Office in Zagreb, Croatia (the “JA” or “the prosecutor”)
has issued a European Arrest warrant (“EAW”) dated 23rd October 2017 for the
extradition of Mr Ivica Todoric. The warrant is based on a detention order dated 18th
October 2017 issued by the Croatian court. The EAW was issued on 23rd October
2017, it was certified by the NCA the day after and Mr Todoric was arrested on 7th
November 2017. Mr Todoric was granted conditional bail by the court and the full
hearing took place on 10th April 2018. Judgment was given on 23rd April 2018.
2. Ms Rosemary Davidson represented the RP at the full hearing and Ms Clare
Montgomery QC leading Mr Aaron Watkins appeared for the JA. This was the first
request under the EAW scheme from Croatia. This case is of interest to the Croatian
press as Mr Todoric is accused of various types of fraud allegedly committed against a
very large company, Agrokor, which he founded in 1976. The company is said to
employ over 60,000 people and is of significance to the economy of the country. The
offences are set out in detail in box (e) of the EAW and span 2006 to April 2017.
2
Issues
3. Ms Davidson raised two issues only. The first, that there is an absence of a
prosecution decision in the case and applying section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003
(“EA”), extradition should be barred. The second, that the prosecution is for an
improper purpose and is an abuse of the process of the court and that extradition
should be barred.
Evidence
4. I was provided with a joint bundle containing the evidence from both parties. The
evidence included the EAW and associated documents as well as the expert evidence
relied upon by the RP.
Evidence - JA
5. From the JA, I have received the Form A dated 23rd October 2017, in the last line it
says that the court has ordered investigative detention (tab C2 page 24). The Form A
was accompanied by a Form M under the NSIS II System (tab C2 page 28). Page 30
of Form M stresses that the EAW was issued on the basis of the Zagreb Court ruling
on 18th December 2017 (this probably should read 18th October 2017) ordering
investigative detention against the RP.
6. The Form M sets out the law, that investigative detention may be ordered if there
exists probable cause that a person committed an offence. In the RP’s case it was
ordered because there was probable cause he committed seven offences and there
were circumstances suggesting that he “shall impede the proceedings by influencing
witnesses”. The document explains that such an order is made only if the measure is
reasonable and necessary. The interference with witnesses objection to bail is
justified at page 31 in the last paragraph where it is said that the RP had used
electronic communication to influence witnesses and the judiciary.
7. A letter dated 7th November 2017 encloses the English translation of the EAW (tab C3
page 33 onwards). The EAW has the usual request for the arrest of a person for the
“purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence…”.
The court’s ruling on detention is set out at box (b). The maximum sentences are to
be found in box (c). The alleged offences are set out in detail in box (e) at pages 37 to
52. They include all that is necessary to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Act
(section 10 and section 64(3) of the EA 2003). The date and place of the alleged
offences are shown and the detail allows the RP to consider whether there are any bars
to extradition. It is signed by the County State Attorney, the prosecutor Ms Sani
Ljubicic.
To continue reading
Request your trial