Key Facts
- •Appeal against extradition to Hungary under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •Extradition sought based on two European Arrest Warrants (AW1 and AW2).
- •Appeal concerns five offences from AW1 (14, 15b, 16b, 17b, 26).
- •Offences 14, 15b, 16b, 17b involve alleged forgery of postal receipts.
- •Offence 26 involves alleged copyright infringement of software.
- •Dual criminality is the central issue: would the conduct constitute offences under UK law?
- •Appellant was unrepresented at the extradition hearing.
- •The dual criminality issue was raised for the first time on appeal.
Legal Principles
Dual criminality test under section 65(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003: Conduct must constitute an offence under UK law.
Extradition Act 2003
Conduct test applies: Court examines the particularised conduct in the AW, not just the elements of the foreign offence.
Norris v Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16
Facts in AW must impel the inference that the necessary mens rea for the domestic offence exists.
Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)
Forgery offences under sections 1 and 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981: Requires a false instrument made with intent to induce acceptance as genuine, causing prejudice.
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981
A document is 'false' if it tells a lie about itself, relating to the circumstances of its making, not extraneous facts.
R v More [1987] 1 WLR 1578, Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 2000) [2001] 1 WLR 331
Computer misuse offence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990: Requires causing a computer to perform a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to program or data.
Computer Misuse Act 1990
'Unauthorised' access requires lack of entitlement to control access and lack of consent from someone entitled to control access.
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendary Magistrate ex parte Government of the United States of America [2000] 2 AC 216
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Respondent failed to establish dual criminality for the forgery and copyright offences. The conduct described did not meet the requirements of the relevant UK legislation.
Appellant discharged in respect of offences 14, 15b, 16b, 17b, and 26 in AW1.
These offences are not 'extradition offences' under UK law.
Appellant will be extradited on other convictions.
These were not the subject of the appeal.