The Judicail Authority of the Court of First Instance, Hasselt, Belgium v Bartlett (Rev 1)

The Judicail Authority of the Court of First Instance, Hasselt, Belgium v Bartlett (Rev 1)

The EAW was valid as it was issued for the purpose of prosecution and the appellant was 'accused' within the meaning of the Act; the warrant contained sufficient particulars for drug trafficking and criminal organisation offences but was insufficient for money laundering. Extrinsic evidence is only admissible if the warrant is ambiguous, which was not the case here.

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
Extradition Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Accusation Warrant Validity, Particularisation of Offences, Mutual Recognition, Procedural Requirements Under Extradition Act 2003
Criminal Law Extradition Law European Law European Arrest Warrant Accusation Warrant Validity Particularisation of Offences Mutual Recognition Procedural Requirements Under Extradition Act 2003

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Claimant/respondent

WARREN BARTLETT

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued for the purpose of prosecution and whether the appellant was 'accused' within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the EAW contained sufficient particulars of the alleged offences to comply with s2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The EAW was valid as it was issued for the purpose of prosecution and the appellant was 'accused' within the meaning of the Act; the warrant contained sufficient particulars for drug trafficking and criminal organisation offences but was insufficient for money laundering. Extrinsic evidence is only admissible if the warrant is ambiguous, which was not the case here.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

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