The High Court refused a US request for a provisional arrest warrant for Edward J. Snowden, finding that the request did not say where the alleged offences took place.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 6 July 2013, Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh considered an application under section 27 of the Extradition Act 1965. He said the court had discretion over a provisional warrant, unlike an arrest warrant sought after the Minister certified that an extradition request had been made.
The judge was satisfied that the US Embassy’s request met several statutory requirements. It stated that a US arrest warrant for Snowden existed and described the offences he was charged with under US law: unauthorised disclosure of national defence information, unauthorised disclosure of classified communication intelligence, and theft of government property. The judge also found that the request adequately described the alleged circumstances and Snowden’s alleged involvement. With some hesitation, he accepted that it gave an adequate timeframe for the alleged offences.
The location requirement was not met. The judge said the request itself did not identify where the alleged unauthorised disclosures occurred. He considered whether an affidavit used to obtain the US arrest warrant could be taken into account. Even assuming he could consider it, the affidavit left open whether the disclosures happened in the United States, Japan or Hong Kong. The judge said the location could have serious consequences at a later stage of any extradition process, but that those questions were not before him.
A note appended to the judgment adds that the decision also rested on the request’s failure to identify what property was allegedly stolen or where the theft took place. The court could not assume that it happened in Hawaii.
Because the request did not indicate where any of the alleged offences took place, the judge refused the application. The ruling concerned only the provisional arrest warrant; it did not decide whether Snowden committed the alleged offences or whether he could ultimately be extradited.