Extradition - June-13-12
www.lawgazette.org.uk - Opinion
Extradition hearing - European Arrest Warrant - Appellant being arrested pursuant to European Arrest Warrant
Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority: SC (Justices of the Supreme Court, Lords Phillips (president), Walker, Brown, Mance, Kerr, Dyson, Lady Hale): 30 May 2012
On 2 December 2010, the respondent Swedish Prosecution Authority issued a European Arrest Warrant (the warrant) requesting the arrest and surrender of the appellant. The appellant was, at that time, in England, where he remained at the time of the instant hearing. The offences of which he was accused and in respect of which his surrender was sought were alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. They included sexual molestation and, in one case, rape. At the extradition hearing before the senior district judge, and subsequently on appeal to the Divisional Court, he challenged the validity of the warrant on a number of grounds. One of the grounds was that the warrant had been issued by a public prosecutor who was not a 'judicial authority' as required by article 6 of the Council of the European Union framework decision on the European Arrest Warrant and surrender procedures between member states of the European Union 2002/584/JHA (the framework decision) and by sections 2(2) and 66 of the Extradition Act 2003. He argued that a 'judicial authority' had to be impartial and independent both of the executive and of the parties and, as prosecutors were parties in the criminal process, they could not be independent and impartial. If, contrary to that argument, prosecutors could issue warrants under the framework decision, then the appellant contended that they fell outside the definition in the act, as it was clear that parliament had intended to restrict the power to issue warrants to a judge or court. Following his unsuccessful challenge, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The issue was whether a warrant issued by a public prosecutor was a valid warrant issued by a judicial authority within the meaning of sections 2(2) and 66 of the 2003 act. The respondent submitted, inter alia, that the phrase 'judicial authority', in the context of the framework decision, and other European instruments, bore a broad and autonomous meaning. It described any person or body authorised to play a part in the judicial process. The term embraced a variety of bodies, some of which had the qualities of impartiality and independence and some of which did not. In some parts of the framework decision the term 'judicial authority' described one type, in other parts another. A prosecutor properly fell within the description 'judicial authority' and was capable of being the judicial authority competent to issue a warrant under article 6 of the framework decision if the law of the state so provided. 'Judicial authority' had to be given the same meaning in the 2003 act as it bore in the framework decision. Consideration was given to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The appeal would be dismissed (Lady Hale and Lord Mance dissenting).
'Judicial authority' in part 1 of the act should be accorded the same meaning as it bore in the framework decision, and that term was properly to be understood as including public prosecutors (see ,  of the judgment).
The purpose of the framework decision was to introduce a system of surrender between judicial authorities for those accused or convicted of serious criminal offences which required each of the member states to give a uniform interpretation of the phrase 'judicial authority'. Article 31.3(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties permitted recourse, as an aid to interpretation, to 'any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which established the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation'. When one considered the draft September framework decision, it was beyond doubt that 'judicial authority' was a term that embraced both a court and a public prosecutor. Although the precise definition of 'judicial authority' was removed from the final draft, the overall scheme of the warrant did not change from that proposed in the September draft.
In particular there remained a requirement for an antecedent process before the issue of the warrant. Article 2, under the heading 'Scope of the European Arrest Warrant' set out the offences in respect of which a warrant could be issued. Article 8 specified the content of the warrant, which included '(c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of articles 1 and 2.' There could be two possible reasons for removing the precise definition of 'judicial authority' that had been included in the September draft. The first was to restrict the meaning by excluding from its ambit the public prosecutor. The second was to broaden the meaning so that it was not restricted to a judge or a public prosecutor. The second explanation was the more probable. Further, there was a strong presumption in favour of interpreting an English statute in a way which did not place the UK in breach of its international obligations (see , , , , , ,  of the judgment).
In the instant case, the respondent judicial authority which had issued the warrant had been a 'judicial authority' within the meaning of that phrase in section 2 of the 2003 act and therefore the appellant's challenge to the validity of the warrant failed (see  of the judgment).
Decision of Divisional Court  EWHC 2849 (Admin) affirmed.
Dinah Rose QC, Mark Summers and Helen Law (instructed by Birnberg Peirce & Partners) for the appellant; Clare Montgomery QC, Aaron Watkins and Hannah Pye (instructed by Special Crime Division, Crown Prosecution Service) for the respondent.
Other Practice & Procedure Case law news
Practice & Procedure
| May-24-13 - Cut-and-paste judgment was ‘a thoroughly bad practice’ »
He is known as one of the most computer-savvy judges on the bench. But the digital skills of Judge Simon Brown, QC, got him into trouble yesterday when it emerged that he had “copied and pasted” large parts of one of his judgments. ... [view]
| May-23-13 - R v OSSAMA HAMED (2013) »
A sentencing judge had erred when reducing full credit for a guilty plea because the defendant had subsequently given untruthful evidence in the trial of his co-defendants. The defendant's plea had not been given on a specified basis and the factual basis for sentencing had been the Crown's case. ... [view]
| May-23-13 - R v ANDREW CRAIG HOBSON (2013) »
A conviction for indecent assault on two children was unsafe where the summing up in relation to specimen counts was such that there was a realistic possibility that a reasonable jury could have reached its verdict in respect of a specimen count by focussing on different occasions. ... [view]
| May-22-13 - PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE v McKEE : PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE v ELLIOTT (2013) »
Parliament had not intended, by enacting the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 art.61(8B), that a failure by the secretary of state to authorise an electronic fingerprinting device for use meant that any fingerprint evidence obtained as a result of using of such a device was automatically inadmissible. ... [view]
| May-21-13 - IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH HILL & CO SOLICITORS (2013) »
Any practice of not disclosing the details of alibi witnesses to the prosecution until they had provided signed proofs of evidence was wrong and breached the requirements of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 s.6A(2)(a). However, the view that details should not be disclosed had been widely held; a firm of solicitors' failure to disclose had not been improper or unreasonable so as to justify a wasted costs order against them. ... [view]
| May-21-13 - R v ITN NEWS & ORS (2013) »
The crown court had jurisdiction to order reporting restrictions under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.46 where the name of a witness was common knowledge but publication of photographs of her and her children would have led to her identification which would have affected the quality of her evidence at trial. ... [view]
| May-20-13 - OWEN CAMPBELL v FRANCE (2013) »
The extradition of a British national to France was barred by reason of the passage of time because the French authorities had failed to pursue a European arrest warrant based on accusations of criminal conduct but had instead issued a second warrant four years later after convicting the accused in his absence without informing him of the date of the trial. ... [view]
| May-17-13 - R v T (2013) »
Credit for a guilty plea was to reflect savings to the public purse and the avoidance of requiring complainants to give evidence and be cross-examined; it was not to be given solely for showing remorse. ... [view]
| May-17-13 - R v M (2013) »
A sentence of 12 years' imprisonment for rape was reduced to 10 and a half years where the sentencing judge had failed to have sufficient regard to the unusual circumstances of the offence, in particular the effect upon the offender and the complainant, his former partner, of the death of their child. ... [view]
| May-16-13 - Criminal law »
Defendant appealing - Whether judge erring in admitting surveillance evidence at trial ... [view]
| April-26-13 - R v (1) KAZIM ALI KHAN (2) UMAR KHAN (3) MOHAMMED ARFAN KHAN (4) MOHAMMED AHSAN KHAN (2013) »
The sentencing guidelines on drugs offences applied to offences involving the supply of drugs which were charged as a conspiracy. Conspiracies involving street dealing were not intended to be restricted to category 3, in which the starting point was not based on quantity; categories of offence were to be assessed in relation to the harm done, which was itself reflective of the amount of the drug put into circulation. ... [view]
| April-17-13 - R v SEAN THOMPSON (2013) »
A sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, imposed following a guilty plea to arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, was not manifestly excessive for an offender who was not of good character and who had ben drinking to excess, whose principal mitigation was his suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. ... [view]
| April-16-13 - R v ROBERT MORRIS (2013) »
A minimum term of 12 years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive for an offence of murder. The offender had not had a legitimate expectation that his tariff would be set at the level recommended by the trial judge, since the High Court had set the minimum term in accordance with the requirements of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch.22. ... [view]
| April-12-13 - R v SHAHID ZAMAN & 5 ORS (2013) »
Sentences of three or four years' imprisonment respectively, according to age, were imposed on youths who had attacked and robbed as a group were not manifestly excessive. However, in the case of one, who had inadvertently been sentenced to a detention and training order when he was 14 years old and who did not meet the criteria for detention under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.91, a youth rehabilitation order for 12 months would be substituted. ... [view]
| March-26-13 - R v ALEXANDRA M EASTHAM (2013) »
A total sentence of three years' imprisonment imposed following pleas of guilty to 15 offences of fraud and two of theft was reduced to two years. The defendant had stolen from her own children, in breach of trust, over a significant period of time, but there had been no good reason to increase the sentence above the starting point of three years for offences which fell into the most serious category specified in the sentencing guidelines for thefts in breach of trust. ... [view]
| March-14-13 - R v LEVI BENJAMIN MORRIS (2013) »
A judge had been entitled to reject a submission of no case to answer on the basis of the circumstantial evidence linking a defendant to an attempt to smuggle cocaine into the United Kingdom. ... [view]
| March-08-13 - R v DONALD TOLEIKIS (2013) »
An offender found in possession of clothes left out in bags for charity had been properly convicted of handling stolen goods. It was not necessary to prove that the goods belonged to the organisation named on the bags, but by putting the clothes into the bags the householders had completed a gift to that organisation by delivery. ... [view]
| January-16-13 - R v EIRIAN WYN DAVIES (2013) »
It had not been open to a recorder to sentence on the basis of the victim's complaint of rape rather than on the basis of the defendant's guilty plea to sexual activity with a child family member. ... [view]
| October-06-11 - R v (1) DONALD AJALA (2) DAVID AJALA (3) BONGANE PETER (2011) »
The Court of Appeal reduced sentences of imprisonment and detention imposed for a planned gang robbery of a vulnerable victim at night using imitation firearms as the judge had set too high a starting point for offenders who were young men of previous good character. ... [view]