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 abuse.
Held: The appeal failed. The information was optional, and the information missing from the request was information known in any event to the defendant. The words ‘any other warrant’ in section 2(4) do refer to any domestic arrest warrant that may exist.
In an accusation case, the requirement in section 2(4)(b) of the 2003 Act for information consisting of ‘particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person’s arrest in respect of the offence’ refers to ‘any domestic warrant on which the European arrest warrant is based, and not to any other European arrest warrant which may have been issued on the basis of any such domestic warrant’
The language of article 8.1 draws a distinction between a ‘European arrest warrant’ and in sub-paragraph (c) ‘an arrest warrant’, which indicates that the latter words refer to any domestic warrant.

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lord Mance, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr
Times 24-Nov-2009, [2009] UKSC 4, [2010] 1 All ER 402, [2009] 1 WLR 2550, UKSC 2009/0047
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Extradition Act 2003 2(2)(a) 4(b), Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states of the European Union (2002/584/JHA; OJ 2002 L190, pl)
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Ellison QBD 1990
Bingham LJ said: ‘If any criminal court at any time has cause to suspect that a prosecutor may be manipulating or using the procedures of the court in order to oppress or unfairly to prejudice a defendant before the court, I have no doubt that it is . .
CitedCriminal proceedings against Pupino ECJ 16-Jun-2005
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Articles 34 EU and 35 EU – Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Protection of vulnerable . .
Appeal fromLouca v Public Prosecutor In Bielefel, Germany Admn 27-Nov-2008
The defendant objected to the extradition order, saying that the European arrest warrant relied on did not disclose other warrants issued for the same offences.
Held: The Act required the warrant to be validated by the issuing national court. . .
CitedZakowski v Regional Court In Szczecin, Poland Admn 16-May-2008
Maurice Kay LJ said that section 2(6)(c) of the 2003 Act ‘should be construed as referring only to other EAWs issued in respect of the offence.’ . .
CitedDabas 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 . .
CitedJaso and others v Central Criminal Court No.2 Madrid Admn 14-Dec-2007
The Madrid Court had issued European Arrest Warrants against the three appellants on charges of membership of a criminal organisation and terrorism. The appellants had unsuccessfully challenged extradition before the District Judge on a large number . .

Cited by:
CitedAssange 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.
CitedBucnys v Ministry of Justice SC 20-Nov-2013
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 . .
CitedGoluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland SC 29-Jun-2016
The appellants challenged the effectiveness of European Arrest Warrants, saying that the requests were deficient in not providing adequate details of warrants issued in support of the decisions. They had been convicted and sentenced to terms of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, European

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.380325