Biritwum v District Public Prosecutors Office in Zwolle-Lelystad Netherlands
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
Areas of Law
- Immigration Law
- Extradition Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal addresses the decision for extradition of the appellant to Holland under a European Arrest Warrant for aiding and abetting illegal entry. The court considered whether the particulars of the offence met legal requirements and if dual criminality was established. The warrant was deemed valid, confirming the extradition. The court evaluated statutory requirements and relevant judgments in reaching its decision.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Zani ordering the extradition to Holland of the Appellant on what is plainly a conviction European Arrest Warrant (an "EAW"). I say that because aspects of his judgment suggest that he considered the particulars required under section 2(4) of the Act, which were the particulars appropriate to an accusation warrant. The Appellant faces serving a term of 327 days.
The first issue raised in the appeal is whether the particulars of the offence satisfy the requirements of section 2(6)(b) . In particular, (b) requires, for a valid warrant, that the warrant contain the statement and information as to the particulars of the conviction.
The terms of the EAW are that in respect of the one offence:
"On 12 February 2006 in Heerlen, together with others, namely C Rowland and J Abus, the person concerned aided and abetted the procurement of entry into the Netherlands while he knew that such entry was illegal. The person concerned did after all take the aforesaid Rowland and aforesaid Abus from the Federal Republic of Germany to the Netherlands in a motor vehicle driven by him."
It is, in the end, clear that Rowland and Abus are the persons whose entry into the Netherlands was said to be illegal.
Mr Hall for the Appellant puts his case under this head briefly. He said that it is not possible to tell from that description of the offending conduct what the nature of the illegality was. It could have been, he said, something to do with either the vehicle or something other than the people but which that was taken with them, for example, contraband goods. There might have been some specific bar against those particular individuals preventing legal transit by them from Germany into the Netherlands.
Ms Hinton for the requesting authority points to the classification of the offence which then follows, which is aiding and abetting another person to procure entry into the Netherlands while he knew that such entry was illegal.
The applicable article of the Netherlands penal code says that it is an imprisonable offence to assist another person to obtain entry to the Netherlands and certain other countries which are signatories to the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land and Sea and Air (New York, 15 November 2000), supplementing the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, when he knows that the entry or transit is illegal. Such activities make a person guilty