The Supreme Court has referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) about whether three men facing surrender to the UK could be required to serve six-month sentences for contempt of court after their surrender. The reference does not decide the appeals or overturn the High Court’s surrender orders.
The men, Patrick Sparling, Daniel O’Brien and James Coffey, are subject to Trade and Cooperation Arrest Warrants issued in December 2022. The UK seeks their surrender to prosecute them for 39 alleged fraud-type offences connected with their roles as joint owners and directors of Stanton Roofing and Building Limited. The allegations include misrepresenting the need for roof work and overcharging property owners. They remain on bail pending the proceedings.
The men object that surrender could expose them to six-month terms of imprisonment imposed by Reading Crown Court after it found, in August 2021, that they had breached restraint orders. Those orders, made to preserve assets for possible compensation to alleged injured parties, restricted dealings with assets and required disclosure of assets in or outside England and Wales. The arrest warrants state that the breaches are not criminal offences under UK law and that the warrants seek prosecution for the alleged frauds, not service of the contempt sentences.
The men argue that the Trade and Cooperation Agreement’s rule of specialty bars surrender if it would lead to a person being deprived of liberty for a prior offence other than the one for which surrender was sought. They say “offence” should have an autonomous meaning informed by European human-rights law, including the nature and severity of the penalty. The Minister for Justice and Equality disputed that approach, arguing that domestic classification matters in the surrender framework.
In April 2024, the High Court dismissed the objection and ordered surrender, finding that the UK did not treat the restraint-order breaches as criminal offences and that the sentences therefore did not fall within the specialty rule. The Supreme Court heard the appeal in July. It said the question had not previously been decided by the CJEU and referred five questions under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The questions ask whether the surrender provisions apply only to criminal prosecutions and sentences; how “offence” in the specialty rule should be defined; whether EU Charter or European Convention rights inform that meaning; and whether the rule precludes surrender in circumstances involving a six-month sentence for contempt classified as civil under the issuing state’s law.
The Supreme Court recorded that the men had received procedural protections in the UK contempt proceedings, including legal representation and a right of appeal. It has sought the CJEU’s opinion; the referral itself makes no final ruling on the specialty objection. The High Court’s surrender orders remain the decision under appeal.