The Court considered requests made by European Arrest Warrants for the surrender under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 of three persons wanted to serve sentences imposed upon their conviction in other member states of the European Union. The court was asked whether the requests are open to challenge on the basis that (i) they were not the product of a ‘judicial decision’ by a ‘judicial authority’ within the terms of the Framework Decision and/or of Part 1 of the United Kingdom Extradition Act 2003, and (ii) the ministries making them did not have the function of issuing domestic arrest warrants and were incorrectly certified by SOCA under section 2(7) of the 2003 Act. If a challenge is open on either or both of these bases, the third question is (iii) whether the challenge is on the evidence well-founded in the case of either or both of the Ministries. The appellants said that the relevant ministries of justice were not properly ‘judicial authority’.
Held: The EAWs issued for Bucnys and Lavrov were effective, but not that for Sakalis.
The framework decision did not give member states carte blance to define ‘judicial authority’ as it liked. The concept was derived for the Union Treaty which distinguished between ‘ministries’ and ‘judicial authorities’. The use of this defintion served to bring objectivity, enhancing confidence in the system.
Where an EAW was issued to obtain the surrender of a convicted person by a ministry at the request of or with the endorsement of a sentencing court or other judicial authority responsible for execution of the sentence, then any discretion not to issue does not undermine the request.
Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] 1 AC 480, [2013] UKSC 71, [2013] WLR(D) 446, [2013] 3 WLR 1485, [2014] 2 All ER 235, UKSC 2012/0248
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Extradition Act 2003, Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Enander v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Admn 16-Nov-2005
The claimant sought habeas corpus. The Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant for his extradition. He submitted that the authority issuing the warrant in Sweden did not amount to a ‘judicial authority’ because it would not be so . .
Cited – Goatley v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another HCJ 12-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Harmatos v King’s Prosecutor In Dendermond, Belgium Admn 24-May-2011
. .
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Cited – France v Commission ECJ 9-Aug-1994
ECJ 1. In order for an action to be admissible under the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, the contested act must be an act of an institution which produces legal effects. Since it is apparent from . .
Cited – Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
Cited – Eman and Sevinger (European Citizenship) ECJ 12-Sep-2006
ECJ (Opinion) European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Requirements of residence in the Netherlands for Netherlands citizens of Aruba – Citizenship of the Union. . .
Cited – Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid HL 28-Feb-2007
The defendant sought to appeal his extradition to Spain to face terrorism charges. He complained that the certificate required under the 2003 Act could not be the European arrest warrant itself, that the offence did not satisfy the double . .
Cited – Kozlowski (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 17-Jul-2008
ECJ Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States – Article 4(6) – Ground for optional . .
Cited – Louca v A German Judicial Authority SC 19-Nov-2009
The defendant resisted extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant was defective in not revealing the existence of two earlier such warrants. He said that absence of such information would hinder a court which was concerned as to possible . .
Cited – Mantello (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 7-Sep-2010
ECJ Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European Arrest Warrant – Reason for mandatory non-execution – Principle ne bis in idem principle – Fundamental right – when the . .
Cited – Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority Admn 2-Nov-2011
The defendant argued that he should not be extradited under a European Arest warrant to Sweden to face allegations of serious sexual assaults. He argued that the prosecutor requesting the extradition was not a judicial authority, that some offences . .
Cited – Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC 30-May-2012
The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.
Appeal from – Ministry of Justice, Lithuania v Bucnys Admn 12-Oct-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition
Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518305
