→ 🇬🇧 United Kingdom

The application in Italy of a custodial measure for the purpose of executing an international arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom, pursuant to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed on 24 December 2020, in relation to criminal proceedings pending before its judicial authorities, does not violate the ne bis in idem principle where, on the basis of the same warrant, a custodial measure has already been ordered by another State—namely, Poland—but the person concerned has in the meantime absconded from it. This is because, notwithstanding the existence of two enforcement measures relating to the same arrest warrant, only a single set of criminal proceedings is pending against the person in the issuing State.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United States for the prosecution of the requested person for alleged wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with the electronic filing of false tax returns. The requested person challenged the admissibility of extradition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the documents submitted by the United States were insufficient, that the facts for which extradition had been declared admissible were not clearly identified, and that the requirement of double criminality was not met. The Advocate General considered that the extradition documents were sufficient, including as to U.S. jurisdiction and the applicable statutory provisions. Although the description of the facts in the lower court’s decision was not entirely clear, the Advocate General considered that this could be remedied by reading the decision as referring to the facts set out in the supporting affidavit. The Advocate General further found that the alleged conduct corresponded under Dutch law to fraud and forgery, and recommended dismissal of the appeal; the Supreme Court followed that conclusion under Article 81(1) RO.

The requested person applied for bail while awaiting a committal hearing on the United Kingdom’s request for her extradition for alleged theft offences. The High Court held that its power to grant bail under section 97(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code was circumscribed by the express prohibition applicable to persons arrested under the Extradition Act in section 95(1)(c). Bail remained possible only within the limited statutory exception for juveniles or sick or infirm persons, and the general High Court provision could not be used to circumvent that restriction. The Court added that, even assuming a broader statutory or inherent power existed, bail in extradition proceedings should be granted only for special reasons; as none were established, the application was dismissed.