The High Court ordered Martin Stafford’s surrender to an authorised United Kingdom authority under a European arrest warrant covering six alleged offences: unlawful wounding, kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, sexual touching and murder.
In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2006, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the court was satisfied that Stafford was the person named in the warrant and that it had been endorsed for execution. He said the case did not involve a conviction in absentia, so the undertaking mentioned in section 16(1)(c) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 was not required.
The warrant was issued by Bow Street Magistrates’ Court in London. Stafford’s objections included arguments that it lacked sufficient information about five of the offences and did not adequately describe his alleged participation. His counsel also argued that further information should be sought from the issuing authority and that surrender would breach the Constitution. A proposed objection based on the 60- or 90-day period having passed was affected by a Supreme Court ruling in Dundon, which held that exceeding that period did not bar a surrender order. A separate objection to the registrar’s signature on the endorsement was no longer pursued.
The warrant narrative said a woman identified as Michelle Gunshon went missing in Birmingham in December 2004 and her body had not been found. It alleged that Stafford was identified driving her car on 5 December, and that semen recovered from the car matched a DNA profile held for him. The warrant also described blood found in the car and property later recovered near a Birmingham pub. These were allegations in the warrant; the High Court was deciding whether surrender requirements were met, not Stafford’s guilt.
Justice Peart held that the narrative described a sufficient degree of alleged involvement for the warrant’s purposes. He said the court was not required to assess whether the material amounted to a prima facie case or to demand the requesting authority’s full proposed evidence. He rejected the request for additional information under section 20 and was not satisfied that surrender would breach the Constitution. He also found no statutory bar to surrender, including under sections 21A to 24.
The court found the minimum gravity requirement met for all six offences. It made the order for surrender under section 16(1).