Kricka v County Court In Varazdin, Croatia, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, May 11, 2018, [2018] EWHC 1129 (Admin)

Resolution Date:May 11, 2018
Issuing Organization:Administrative Court
Actores:Kricka v County Court In Varazdin, Croatia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 1129 (Admin)

Case No: CO/5108/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 11 May 2018

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Florence Iveson (instructed by JD Spicer) for the Appellant

Catherine Brown (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) for the Respondent

Reasons for the Decision of the Court made following the hearing

Hearing date: 26 April 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Justice Supperstone :

Introduction

  1. The Appellant appeals against the decision of District Judge Grant made on 27 October 2017 to order her extradition to Croatia pursuant to three European Arrest Warrants. The first EAW was issued on 17 July 2015 and certified by the NCA on 13 March 2017. The second EAW was issued on 29 February 2016 and certified by the NCA on 13 March 2017. The third EAW was issued on 4 July 2016 and certified by the NCA on 13 March 2017.

  2. The first EAW is an accusation warrant in respect of eight offences which have been charged under Croatian law as ``abuse of trust and economic transactions''. A domestic arrest warrant was issued on 8 May 2014. The offence carries a maximum sentence of ten years. The second EAW is an accusation warrant in respect of one offence classified under Croatian law as ``instigation of abuse of trust in economic transactions''. The third EAW is an accusation warrant in respect of two offences, the first classified under Croatian law as ``abuse of trust in economic transactions'', and the second as ``counterfeiting business documents''.

  3. This appeal is only concerned with the first EAW (``EAW1'').

  4. On 1 February 2018 Holman J granted permission to appeal on two grounds:

    i) First, whether offences 1-3 and 5-7 in EAW1 comply with s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (``the Act'') (Ground 1); and

    ii) Second, whether those offences in EAW1 are ``extradition offences'' within the meaning of ss.10 and 64 of the Act (Ground 2).

    Holman J added that if the judge on appeal upholds ground 1 and/or 2, then he left open to him to consider any consequential reconsideration that may be required of the Article 8 balancing exercise.

  5. On 17 April 2018 further information was requested of the Respondent (arising from how the case was being argued on behalf of the Appellant and as permitted by Holman J when granting permission). On 20 April the Respondent responded to the request.

  6. As a result of the new information provided by the Respondent, Ms Florence Iveson, for the Appellant, accepts that sufficient particulars have now been given so that offences 1-3 and 5-7 in EAW1 comply with s.2 (Ground 1)

  7. Accordingly the principal issue for determination on the appeal is whether those offences in EAW1 are ``extradition offences'' (Ground 2).

  8. At the conclusion of the hearing, having heard oral submissions from Ms Iveson and Ms Catherine Brown, for the Respondent, I decided that offences 1-3 and 5-7 in EAW1 are ``extradition offences'' within the meaning of ss.10 and 64 of the 2003 Act.

  9. It followed, as Ms Iveson accepted, that no issue now arises under Article 8 on this appeal.

  10. That being so, I ordered that the appeal be dismissed. I gave brief reasons for my decision and stated that I would give full reasons in writing, which I now do.

  11. I am grateful to both counsel for their helpfully presented submissions.

    The legislative framework

  12. The court must be satisfied that the conduct contained within the EAW is ``an extradition offence'' pursuant to s.10 of the 2003 Act. Extradition offences are defined in s.64 of the Act for accusation warrants. In this case, since the offending occurred in Croatia, either s.64(3) or 64(5) must be satisfied, which read as follows:

    ``(3) The conditions in this sub-section are that--

    (a) the conduct occurs in the category 1 territory;

    (b) the conduct would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom if it occurred in that part of the United Kingdom;

    (c) the conduct is punishable under the law of the category 1 territory with imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of 12 months or a greater punishment.

    ...

    (5) The conditions in this sub-section are that--

    (a) the conduct occurs in the category 1 territory;

    (b) no part of the conduct occurs in the United Kingdom;

    (c) a certificate issued by an appropriate authority of the category 1 territory shows that the conduct falls within the European framework list;

    (d) the certificate shows that the conduct is punishable under the law of the category 1 territory with imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of 3 years or a greater punishment.''

  13. The relevant legal principles are not in issue.

  14. In...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL