Maureen Adebayo v Central Investigation Court No 3 Madrid (Spain)
[2023] EWHC 691 (Admin)
Adeyinka Omisora v Central Investigative Court No 5 Madrid
8 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3039 (Admin)
High Court
A man is wanted in Spain for cyber fraud. The arrest warrant wasn't perfect, but a court decided it had enough information, plus extra details from Spain, to send him there. The court also said that it was fair to send him to Spain because most of the crime's victims were there, and Spain should prosecute him.
Key Facts
- •Adeyinka Omisora (appellant) is wanted by the Spanish Judicial Authority for three offenses related to a large-scale cyber fraud conspiracy.
- •A warrant was issued on December 28, 2020, and certified on March 9, 2022.
- •Extradition was resisted on grounds including lack of particularisation in the warrant and appropriateness of trial in Spain.
- •The judge ordered extradition on January 5, 2023.
- •Leave to appeal was granted on August 1, 2023, on three grounds.
- •The appellant is alleged to have played a leading role in the conspiracy, acting as a contact for Hakeem Oluwasegun Taiwo, who managed bridging accounts.
- •The warrant initially had poor translation, requiring retranslation.
- •Further information (FI 1, FI 2, FI 3) was provided by the Spanish Judicial Authority.
- •The appellant has lived in the UK since 1970, returning in 2005, and has strong ties to the UK.
Legal Principles
Extradition cannot be ordered unless the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) satisfies the terms of s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003).
M B v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy [2018] EWHC 1808 (Admin)
The warrant must identify the offence(s), allowing the requested person to assert specialty protection. The warrant should contain enough information to enable the requested person to understand with a reasonable degree of certainty the substance of the allegations against him, namely, what he is said to have done, when and where.
M B v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy [2018] EWHC 1808 (Admin); Dhar v Netherlands [2012] EWHC 697
Substantial compliance with s.2 requirements suffices; a lacuna can be filled by further information, but a 'wholesale failure' requires discharging the warrant.
Poland and Sabramowicz [2012] EWHC 3878 (Admin); Alexander v France & Di Benedetto v Italy [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin)
In conspiracy cases, the warrant must indicate, at least briefly, the alleged involvement of the individual.
Pelka v Judge Radomir Boguszewski Regional Court in Gdansk Poland [2012] EWHC 3989 (Admin)
The forum bar (s.19B EA 2003) considers factors like the location of harm, victim interests, prosecutor's belief, evidence availability, delay, desirability of single jurisdiction, and the respondent's UK connections. The judge makes an evaluative judgment.
EA 2003, s.19B; Lauri Love v The Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
A value judgment on the forum bar can be overturned only if the judge misconstrued the statute, failed to consider specified matters, considered other matters, or made an irrational or unreasonable judgment.
Shaw v Government of the United States of America [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed on Ground 1 (inadequate particularisation).
While the warrant had deficiencies, particularly the unexplained use of the alias 'SPONK', the court found substantial compliance with s.2(4)(c) EA 2003 when considering the warrant and further information together. The information, though lacking detail, provided a reasonable degree of certainty about the appellant's alleged actions, location, and timeframe.
Appeal dismissed on Ground 2 (inadequate sentence particulars).
The warrant's statement of the maximum six-year sentence was clear and not undermined by separate maximum sentences for individual offenses. Following Manuel v Portugal [2020] EWHC 744 (Admin), the court held that the maximum sentence was sufficiently stated.
Appeal dismissed on Ground 3 (forum bar).
The judge's evaluative judgment on the forum bar was not irrational or unreasonable. The court considered each factor under s.19B(3) EA 2003 and found that the interests of justice favored extradition to Spain, considering victim interests, evidence transferability, the ongoing prosecutions in Spain, and the appellant's UK connections.