The High Court refused to surrender Mohamed Jalloh to France under a European Arrest Warrant after receiving contradictory information about which French judicial authority had issued it.
In a judgment delivered on 13 June 2016, Ms Justice Donnelly said the warrant named the Public Prosecutor of the French Republic as the issuing judicial authority. Later information from the French Public Prosecutor said the warrant had been issued by investigating judge M. Philippe Salomon, who also confirmed that he had issued it.
The court found that the Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge were different judicial authorities in the French legal system. The discrepancy therefore went to a fundamental feature of the warrant, rather than the identity of the individual who signed it on behalf of an authority. The judge said the court could not execute a warrant issued by an authority different from the one identified on its face. A new warrant would be required before surrender could be ordered.
The application was brought by the Minister for Justice and Equality under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The warrant sought Jalloh’s surrender in connection with three alleged offences: complicity in importing narcotics; complicity in transporting and possessing narcotics; and interest in fraud, described in the judgment as a customs offence. The allegations concerned an August 2012 airport interception in France involving a passenger carrying cocaine. They were allegations in the French proceedings, not findings by the High Court.
Jalloh’s main argument was that surrender was barred by section 21A because, he said, no decision had been made in France to charge and try him. The court did not determine that issue. It also rejected his objections based on vagueness, section 38 of the Act and the claimed disproportionate impact on his family and private life. An objection based on section 44 had been abandoned during the hearing.
The court’s order was limited to refusing surrender on this particular warrant. The judgment did not decide the section 21A issue or make findings on the underlying allegations.