Adeyinka Omisora v Central Investigative Court No 5 Madrid
[2023] EWHC 3039 (Admin)
Maureen Adebayo v Central Investigation Court No 3 Madrid (Spain)
28 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 691 (Admin)
High Court
A woman is appealing her extradition to Spain for fraud. The court says there's enough evidence to send her, even though she says it will harm her family. They believe the charges are serious enough to outweigh her concerns, and that Spain had good reasons to refuse a less serious alternative.
Key Facts
- •Maureen Adebayo appeals extradition to Spain on three alleged offences: continuous swindling, receiving stolen goods/money laundering, and participation in a criminal organisation.
- •The EAW, supplemented by further information, alleges Adebayo acted as a 'mule' for a criminal organisation involved in 'Nigerian letter' fraud.
- •Adebayo received fraudulent transfers into accounts she controlled and then transferred or withdrew the funds.
- •Adebayo challenges the sufficiency of particulars regarding the swindling charge, arguing a lack of detail on her direct involvement in the fraudulent schemes.
- •The appeal also challenges the proportionality of extradition, given the possibility of less coercive measures like a video interview, and the impact on Adebayo's family in Nigeria.
- •Adebayo raises an Article 8 ECHR claim concerning the interference with her private and family life due to extradition.
Legal Principles
Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires particulars of the circumstances of the alleged offence, including conduct, time, place, and applicable law.
Extradition Act 2003
Sufficient particularisation is required to enable the requested person to identify the offence, understand the allegations, perform a dual criminality transposition exercise, and determine if extradition bars apply.
FK v Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin)
Section 21A(1)(b) of the 2003 Act requires the judge to consider whether extradition is disproportionate, taking into account specified matters such as the seriousness of the conduct, likely penalty, and the possibility of less coercive measures.
Extradition Act 2003
Article 8 ECHR protects the right to respect for private and family life. In extradition cases, a proportionality assessment balances the public interest in extradition against the impact on the individual's private and family life.
Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found sufficient particularisation in the EAW and further information to satisfy section 2(4)(c). The court rejected the argument that the allegations against Adebayo were non-particularised, holding that the conduct was sufficiently described. The court also upheld the extradition as proportionate, given the seriousness of the alleged offences and the rejection of less coercive measures by the Spanish authorities, a decision the court deemed not unreasonable.
Extradition ordered.
The court found the extradition compatible with Article 8 ECHR, balancing the public interest in extradition against the impact on Adebayo's family life. The court considered the seriousness of the alleged offences and the lack of compelling evidence demonstrating significant hardship.