→ 🇬🇧 United Kingdom

The Court of Appeal of Ireland dismissed appeals against the surrender of two requested persons to Northern Ireland under TCA arrest warrants for offences allegedly committed in 1975 and 1976. Addressing a delay of approximately 48 years in seeking surrender, the Court held that poor administration, maladministration or unexplained inactivity by the issuing State does not, in itself, render a surrender request an abuse of process or justify refusal; rather, the executing judicial authority must assess the reasons for and consequences of the delay together with the requested person’s fundamental rights and apply a proportionality test. Abuse of process requires misuse of the surrender mechanism capable of undermining its integrity, such as failure to cooperate with the executing court, false or misleading information, or use of the procedure for an improper purpose, none of which was established in these cases. The Court also held that the requested persons’ family lives, health conditions and long residence in Ireland did not amount to exceptional circumstances capable of outweighing the public interest in surrender for serious historic offences. In respect of one requested person, the Court further held that a 1978 decision refusing extradition under the former political-offence regime did not create a vested right or permanent immunity from surrender following the replacement of that regime by the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta ordered the committal of the person sought for extradition to the United Kingdom in connection with historical allegations of physical and sexual abuse of minors. The Court held that the Record of the Case established a prima facie case and that the identity of the person sought as the alleged perpetrator (“Brother Peter”) could be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including employment records, witness descriptions and institutional documents. The defence relied on alibi evidence and discrepancies in employment timelines, but the Court found that such elements merely raised competing inferences and did not render the requesting state’s evidence manifestly unreliable. Issues concerning credibility, identification gaps and potential defences were deemed matters for trial, not for the extradition stage.

In the matter of an arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom on the basis of the so-called Partnership Agreement of 24 December 2020, the decision by which the Italian judicial authority, granting a request coming from the foreign authority, orders the surrender of the person for the purposes of participation in the proceedings against him, does not violate the principle of proportionality set out in Article 597 of the Agreement, following an assessment of the seriousness of the facts and of the interests of the victim, in the event that, for the same purposes, procedural options less invasive of personal liberty have been unsuccessfully attempted. (In application of the principle, the Court considered proportionate the surrender of the applicant in order to ensure his physical participation, instead of participation by videoconference, in a trial for sexual abuse, the said person having left Great Britain, while the trial was pending, as soon as he had been released on bail).

Greek Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) Decision No. 158/2024 – Brief SummaryIn Decision No. 158/2024, the Greek Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) dismissed the appeal of a British national against a decision authorising his surrender to the United Kingdom for prosecution on multiple serious offences, including sexual offences against minors, assault, and threatening behaviour.The Court held that, following Brexit, surrender proceedings between Greece and the United Kingdom are governed exclusively by the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which replaced both the European Arrest Warrant framework and the 1957 European Convention on Extradition in relations between the UK and EU Member States.The Supreme Court found that the UK arrest warrant complied with all formal and substantive requirements of the TCA, including a sufficiently detailed description of the alleged offences, the applicable legal provisions, and the potential penalties. It emphasised that the executing judicial authority is not required to examine the merits of the criminal accusations but only to verify compliance with the surrender conditions laid down in the Agreement.The Court rejected the appellant's arguments concerning insufficient information, proportionality, statute of limitations, and alleged risks of unfair treatment or inhuman conditions in Scotland. In particular, it held that the limitation defence under Article 601(1)(d) TCA was inapplicable because the alleged offences had been committed abroad by a foreign national and therefore did not fall within Greek criminal jurisdiction, which means that the statutes of limitation under Greek law does not pose a reason to deny extradition request.Finally, the Court concluded that none of the mandatory or optional grounds for refusing surrender under the TCA were applicable. It therefore upheld the execution of the UK arrest warrant, maintained the requested person's detention pending surrender, and ordered him to pay the procedural costs of the appeal.

The case concerned a request for extradition from Germany to the United Kingdom under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, based on a TCA arrest warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates’ Court for alleged drug trafficking and money laundering conspiracies. The requested person objected to extradition on the ground that prison conditions in England and Wales, including overcrowding, staff shortages and violence, could expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court requested specific, binding assurances and detailed information on the prisons in which the requested person would be held, including cell space, occupancy, sanitation, ventilation, outdoor exercise, activities and medical care. The United Kingdom authorities provided only general information and did not identify the specific detention facilities or give the requested guarantees within the deadline set by the Court. As a result, the Court held that it could not be assumed with sufficient certainty that the requested person would be detained in humane conditions, declared extradition currently inadmissible, revoked the TCA extradition warrant and ordered his immediate release.

In the matter of a prosecution arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom on the basis of the Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of 24 December 2020, the optional nature of the condition of return to Italy in order to serve there the sentence eventually imposed, provided for under Article 604, letter b), of the aforementioned Agreement, results in a regime for Italian citizens that is less favourable than that laid down, for the analogous system of surrender under the European arrest warrant, by Article 19, paragraph 1, letter b), of Law No. 69 of 22 April 2005, as amended by Article 17, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 10 of 2 February 2021; therefore, in the absence of an express different request by the person concerned, the surrender is mandatorily subject to the guarantee of return and the relevant condition, where not contained in the challenged judgment, must be imposed by the Court of Cassation also “ex officio.”

Following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, relations between the two—the former having become a third country—are governed by a specific agreement that entered into force on 1 May 2021. Consequently, extradition procedures do not apply where the United Kingdom requests Italy to surrender a person accused of participation in a criminal association aimed at facilitating illegal immigration. In relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain, following the latter’s withdrawal (so-called Brexit), the European Arrest Warrant framework has been replaced—upon the entry into force of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement—by a new model of cooperation with an autonomous legal basis, namely that set out in Title VII of the said Agreement. This model provides for a system of surrender of requested persons substantially modelled on the former regime and, being self-standing, comprehensive and detailed, is directly applicable.

The withdrawal of the extradition request entails the revocation of real precautionary measures, with the consequent return to the rightful owner of the assets subject to seizure, given that—pursuant to Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959—the requesting State is not entitled to dispose of assets obtained through the execution of a letter rogatory that has subsequently been withdrawn. (In the present case, the Court quashed without remittal the order by which the Court of Appeal had ordered the return of the seized assets, limited to those not yet transferred to the requesting authority).

Extradition proceedings---Non-treaty State---Order of Magisterialenquiry---Government of foreign country (United Kingdom), made a request toPakistan for the appellant's extradition for his trial on the charge of murdering eightpersons in the foreign country---Appellant was arrested in Pakistan, and the enquiryMagistrate found that there was a prima facie case against the appellant warranting hisextradition to the foreign country under the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1972---Appellant challenged said order by way of Constitutional petition before the HighCourt, which was dismissed---Held, that an extradition treaty had not been executedbetween Pakistan and the foreign country in question (United Kingdom)---When therewas no extradition treaty between Pakistan and the foreign State, the provisions of theExtradition Act, 1972 could be made applicable for the return of persons to such a nontreaty State provided the requirements of S. 4 of the Extradition Act, 1972 werefulfilled---In the present case, the enquiry Magistrate requested the Ministry of Interiorto issue a notification under S. 4 of the Extradition Act, 1972 along with thenomination of an enquiry Magistrate to conduct an enquiry under S. 7 of the said Act---Ministry of Interior did issue a notification directing that the provisions of the said Actshall have effect in relation to the foreign country with respect to the extradition of theappellant who was wanted on charges of multiple murders---Although the enquiryMagistrate was appointed three days prior to the issuance of the notification under S. 4,but this by itself did not render the entire proceedings before the enquiry Magistrate,coram non judice or unlawful---At best, this was an irregularity which stood curedwhen the notification under S. 4 was issued---Number of documents were exhibited inthe proceedings before the enquiry Magistrate, including the statement of theinvestigating officer of the case---In said statement, the appellant had been specificallyimplicated for conspiracy to commit arson with intent to endanger life and murder ofeight persons---Investigating officer had also made mention of a confession made bythe appellant to a woman about his involvement in the said offence---Additionally theappellant was also implicated by a witness in the case