The Judicail Authority of the Court of First Instance, Hasselt, Belgium v Bartlett (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1390 (Admin) (11 June 2010)

The Judicail Authority of the Court of First Instance, Hasselt, Belgium v Bartlett (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1390 (Admin) (11 June 2010)

The EAW was validly issued for the purpose of prosecution, not merely for questioning, as evidenced by its language and supporting correspondence. The warrant contained sufficient particulars for the drug trafficking and criminal organisation offences but was insufficiently particularised regarding money laundering. Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1390 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, HASSELT, BELGIUM; Defendant/appellant: WARREN BARTLETT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Extradition Procedures, Accusation Vs. Suspicion, Particularisation of Offences, Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions
Criminal Law Extradition Law European Law European Arrest Warrant Extradition Procedures Accusation Vs. Suspicion Particularisation of Offences Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, HASSELT, BELGIUM

Claimant/respondent

WARREN BARTLETT

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was validly issued for the purpose of prosecution and not merely for questioning
  2. 2 Whether the EAW contained sufficient particulars of the alleged offences as required by section 2(4) of the Extradition Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The EAW was validly issued for the purpose of prosecution, not merely for questioning, as evidenced by its language and supporting correspondence. The warrant contained sufficient particulars for the drug trafficking and criminal organisation offences but was insufficiently particularised regarding money laundering. Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extradition order upheld for drug trafficking and criminal organisation offences
  • Extradition order refused for money laundering offence