The Supreme Court has refused to surrender J.A.T. to the United Kingdom under a second European arrest warrant, after finding that the proceedings cumulatively amounted to an abuse of process.
In a judgment delivered on 28 April 2016, Chief Justice Denham said it was not appropriate to admonish those responsible for the abuse while still surrendering J.A.T. The court allowed his appeal and refused to make a surrender order. It also dismissed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s cross-appeal against the High Court’s finding of abuse.
The warrant sought J.A.T.’s surrender in connection with four alleged offences concerning tax fraud and money laundering. The allegations described conduct between 1997 and 2005, including conspiracy to cheat the UK public revenue. They remain allegations in this surrender proceeding; the Supreme Court was not deciding whether J.A.T. committed the offences.
A first warrant relating to the same offences was discharged by the Supreme Court in December 2010. The High Court later found that the way the renewed surrender request had been pursued caused unjust harassment and oppression to J.A.T. and his family, and was de facto abusive of the court’s process. It nevertheless ordered surrender, concluding that admonishment of those responsible was an adequate response.
The Supreme Court upheld the abuse finding. It said the mere fact that a second warrant had been issued did not itself establish abuse. Its decision instead rested on the circumstances taken together: defects in the first warrant that could have been addressed then, the time that had passed and unexplained delays, J.A.T.’s health, his son’s medical condition and dependence on him as a carer, the family circumstances, and the oppressive effect of the two sets of proceedings. The judgment also noted a lack of engagement by authorities with the first warrant’s issues and the delays.
The court said the High Court’s proposed admonishment would have no effect on J.A.T. if he were surrendered, despite the abuse finding. It concluded that the combined factors justified refusing surrender. The ruling resolves the appeal against the High Court’s order under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003; it does not determine the underlying UK criminal allegations.