References: [2011] EW Misc 5 (MC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Howard Riddle, Senior District Judge
Ratio:(City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court – Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court) The authority sought the extradition of the defendant to Sweden to face prosecution on allegations of sexual assaults. The defendant argued that the Act allowed extradition only for prosecution, and that in this case questioning only was sought and an extradition would be an abuse.
Held: There was no ambiguity in the warrant. The defendant was required for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. The Swedish prosecution process allowed a stage before a decision was made as to the exact form of prosecution: ‘It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold of being an ‘accused’ person who is wanted for prosecution. It is accepted by all parties in this case that it is wrong to approach this question solely from the perspective of English criminal procedure. In our jurisdiction prosecution will normally be started by the laying of an information, or a decision to charge. In many, perhaps most, other European countries the position is different.’ That being the case, the issue was as to the validity of the warrant. It was valid. It would not be appropriate to interrogate such a defendant otherwise than face to face, and the request for the return was proper.
The procedure for hearing such cases in Sweden behind closed doors was not a breach of the defendant’s human rights.
Statutes: Extradition Act 2003
This case is cited by:
- At Magistrates Court – Assange -v- The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 22, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, UKSC 2011/0264, SC, [2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2013] 1 CMLR 4)
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. - At Magistrates Court – Assange -v- Swedish Prosecution Authority Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin))
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 04-Jun-16
Ref: 430056
