The High Court has ordered the surrender of Abderrahman Yahiaoui to France under a European arrest warrant, rejecting seven objections to his surrender. Mr Justice David Keane made the order under section 16(2) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 on 19 January 2023.
The warrant seeks Mr Yahiaoui’s return to serve a six-year prison sentence imposed in his absence by a Paris court on 30 November 2001. The offence was described as participation in a group formed to prepare acts of terrorism. The warrant said the alleged activity involved producing forged identity documents in Marseille and later trafficking weapons from the Netherlands between 1996 and 1998. It stated that the full sentence remained to be served.
Mr Yahiaoui argued that the French anti-terrorist prosecutor who issued the warrant did not qualify as a judicial authority, that he would not receive a fair retrial, and that the warrant did not clearly identify the offence. He also objected on grounds concerning the location of the alleged conduct, prison conditions, medical care and the effect of surrender on his family life.
The judge rejected the challenge to the prosecutor’s authority, finding that the earlier trial and sentence provided the judicial protection required for a warrant seeking execution of a sentence. The court also relied on information from French authorities that, if Mr Yahiaoui opposed the conviction after surrender, he could seek a full rehearing, challenge procedural acts and appeal a new conviction. The judge said the further information supplied by the issuing authority clarified that the warrant concerned one offence.
On prison conditions, the court considered information identifying Villepinte detention centre as the anticipated place of detention, subject to the French judicial authority’s decision. The judge found no substantial grounds to conclude Mr Yahiaoui would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment there. He also found the material insufficient to establish a real risk arising from Mr Yahiaoui’s medical condition or a family-life violation that would make surrender incompatible with the State’s obligations.
The court was satisfied that the warrant and statutory requirements were met, that the person before it was the person named in the warrant, and that surrender was not prohibited under Part 3 of the Act. It therefore directed surrender to a person authorised by France to receive him. The ruling orders surrender; the judgment does not state that the transfer had already taken place.