Vice Prosecutor, Magistrate of the Judicial Order, France v Charbit
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE BEATSON
- MR JUSTICE CRANSTON
Areas of Law
- Extradition Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case is an appeal against Chief Magistrate Riddle's decision invalidating a European Arrest Warrant for Eric Charbit issued by France for fraud. The warrant was deemed invalid for not adequately specifying the offence as per the Extradition Act 2003 and because annexed details could not be considered. The French authorities contended that the annex could be considered and the warrant disclosed an extradition offence. The court upheld the decision, finding the warrant invalid as all required details must be within the body of the warrant, adhering to Section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the Framework Decision.
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON : This is an appeal against a decision of Chief Magistrate Riddle on 2 June 2014 at the Westminster Magistrates' Court. He held that a European Arrest Warrant issued on 9 May this year, seeking the extradition of the Respondent, Eric Charbit, to France, to face a single charge of fraud, was invalid. The basis of his decision was that (1) the warrant itself did not particularise the offending sufficiently as required by section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (" the 2003 Act ") in that it did not explain (to use the Chief Magistrate's words) "what, if anything, went wrong", and (2) that pursuant to the decision of Ouseley J in Pinnick v Spain [2013] EWHC 1034 (Admin) the details annexed to the warrant could not be taken into account to satisfy section 2 . The French appeal is advanced on two bases: First, that Pinnick v Spain is distinguishable and the Annex to the warrant can be considered, and secondly, that the conduct contained in the warrant, including the Annex, discloses an extradition offence as required by section 10 of the 2003 Act .
2. The background is this. The warrant alleges a swindle contrary to S.313(1),(3),(7) and (8) of the French Penal Code. In the framework list of offending the box "swindle" is marked. The maximum penalty is stated as 5 years. At Box E of the warrant it is alleged, in essence, that there was a real estate project with investments in it through an offshore company in a US stock exchange listed company, Springfield, and that there had been prejudice to the victim investors so far to the extent of €667,000. The Box E particulars, in full, are as follows:
"Description of the circumstances under which the violations have been committed, including the moment (date and time), the location and degree of involvement of the person wanted in the violations.
Perpetrator of the facts, committed in Paris, USA, Bahamas and Cyprus, between July 2008 and July 2010 and over the national territory, since time not covered by statutes of limitation.
Several complaints have been filed further to investments performed by the plaintiffs in a luxury real estate project around "International Golf Waves", knowing that they had been put in touch through Alain MORLOT with Eric CHARBIT, domiciled in Nassau Bahamas [PO Box N 81 85, Nassau, New Providence] and who would be the one dealing with the financing structure for the whole operation in the USA. The investors mentioned that Eric CHARBIT had expla