Rahman v County Court of Boulogne Sur Mer, France
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE BLAKE
Areas of Law
- Extradition Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Farzal Rahman appealed against his extradition to France under a European Arrest Warrant for tax fraud. The High Court allowed the appeal, ruling the extradition oppressive due to delay and impact on his family under Article 8 ECHR.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE BLAKE:
This is an appeal by Farzal Rahman against the decision of District Judge Zani sitting in the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 15 July 2014 when he ordered the appellant's return to France pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant.
The appellant is a British citizen born in High Wycombe in the United Kingdom in April 1985. It seems that his parents originally came from Pakistan but have lived in High Wycombe for a substantial period of time. He has six siblings also living in that area. In about January 2007 he married his wife, Farmiz Bibi, who had been brought up in Pakistan and came to the United Kingdom following marriage around May 2007. In October 2008 she gave birth to a daughter, M, and in October 2010 she gave birth to another daughter, Z. Z has various serious health difficulties from birth and the appellant has been active in her complex care.
The appellant is wanted by the French judicial authorities for offences of tax fraud and failure to make tax returns and to keep proper accounting documents. The European Arrest Warrant issued in September 2013 identifies that he was the manager of a business called EURL Delta Beers and Wines established in Coquelles, Calais, near the entrance to the Channel Tunnel, and that between October 2007 and February 2008 he failed to pay tax and keep proper accounting records, with the result that VAT was not paid and the sum owing is said to be 4.25 million euros.
Criminal proceedings in respect of that conduct were started in October 2009 when the Director of the Tax Division of the Pas de Calais Departement made a complaint. It is not entirely clear from the information before the court what happened between October 2009 and November 2011. There is a reference in the warrant to a request for judicial assistance from the UK authorities but the appellant was not apparently located. It is unclear why any such request would have been unsuccessful given the continuity of his residence at an address in High Wycombe and the fact that the appellant's whereabouts are likely to have been known to the police in the United Kingdom for reasons which I will turn to later in this judgment. At some point between those two dates it was decided that his case should be tried in his absence and a decision must also have been taken not to issue an accusation warrant that might have brought him back to France in time to face his criminal trial.
On 15 November 2011, the appellant was convi