Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 states that a valid extradition request must particularise
“the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence, the time and place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence and any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence”
This provision is mirrored at section 74C(3)(c) in respect of category 2 territories. The distinction between category 1 and 2 territories is explained in another Gherson blog.
What the legislation means for a person facing extradition
An individual facing extradition cannot therefore be extradited on the basis of an extradition request that fails to clearly specify the provision of law under which they will be tried. The request must also give the details of the offence they are convicted or accused of.
This may sound like a basic point to anyone with an understanding of extradition law. However, the high-profile case of Paul Blanchard is a recent and potent example of how a poorly prepared extradition request can be torn apart.
The Paul Blanchard case
In May 2021, the High Court granted permission to appeal in respect of the contents of the extradition request in the case of Blanchard v Spain:
- the extradition request issued in Blanchard’s name failed to specify which provision of Spanish law he would be tried under; and
- within the extradition request, there was reference to a “maximum sentence” of 15 years, however when seeking clarification on the length of sentence, the Spanish authorities referenced offences that would confusingly amount to a maximum of 23 years.
The failure of the Spanish authorities to clearly explain and detail the alleged crimes and provisions of law under which Blanchard would have been tried meant that the maximum sentence was not set out with the exactitude it should have been. Lord Justice Singh therefore concluded that the extradition request was “incoherent and fundamentally defective”.
The importance of analysing the incoming requests
As above, the particulars of the extradition request in the case of Paul Blanchard were judged to be incoherent and fundamentally defective. The request was supposed to refer only to one offence but, in fact, set out several separate offences.
The case illustrates that even in some of the most high profile cases, the National Crime Agency (or Secretary of State for the Home Department in part 2 cases) can certify extradition requests that contain fundamental and basic errors – as basic even as failing to properly define the crime(s) the Requested Person (the term given to the individual whose extradition is sought) is accused of or charged with. Any such issue should be raised by the instructing defence solicitors at the very outset of the proceedings, when bars to extradition are formally raised.
The case also highlights the importance of careful analysis in respect of any extradition request. Basic errors continue to persist in extradition requests and having a specialist there to spot them can delay or even prevent extradition.
Can I be extradited for an unspecified number of allegations or charges?
The short answer is ‘No’. It is essential for the Requested Person to know precisely what offences they will be prosecuted for in an accusation case if they were to be extradited.
The judicial authority sending the extradition request can of course remedy any errors by issuing further information, clarifying the deficiencies in the warrant. However, preparing arguments as to the deficiencies in a request can be vital and may act as helpful tools in delaying extradition proceedings whilst other evidence can be gathered in respect of substantive Human Rights arguments or whilst any issues are resolved in the requesting country.
Gherson has extensive experience with extradition and providing advice in relation to all possible defences to an extradition request. In particular, Gherson has unparalleled experience in handling complex cases involving politically motivated charges. If you have any questions about a current or potential extradition case please do not hesitate to contact us, send us an e-mail, or alternatively, follow us on Twitter or LinkedIn to stay up-to-date.
The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please don’t hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.
©Gherson 2022