Missing information could be added to deficient EAW
Alexander v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marseille District Court of First Instance; Benedetto v Court Palermo, Italy  EWHC 1392 (Admin)
- Related Member(s):
- Related Practice Area(s):
- Crime and Regulatory Law, Extradition and Mutual Assistance
- Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)
These conjoined appeals were listed together because they raised the same point of principle, namely whether and to what extent further information from an Issuing Judicial Authority could validate or cure a defect in an accusation European Arrest Warrant, in circumstances where the EAW in question is said to lack some of the particulars required by the Extradition Act 2003, s 2.
The cases fell to be considered in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Goluchowski v District Court in Elblag, Poland  1 WLR 2665, following the decision in criminal proceedings against Bob-Dogi  1 WLR 4583 (C-241/15). Held, dismissing the appeals, although in Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid  2 AC 31, Lord Hope had said that there could be no “eking out” by further information of a deficient EAW, that approach to the requirements of an EAW and the role of further information must be taken no longer to apply. The formality of Lord Hope’s approach in Cando Armas, based on the wording of the 2003 Act, has not survived Goluchowski and Bob-Dogi. It is clearly open to a requesting judicial authority to add missing information to a deficient EAW so as to establish the validity of the warrant.
Julian B. Knowles QC was involved in this case.