|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Tincu v Public Prosecutor Of Liege (Belgium)  EWHC 3335 (Admin) (08 October 2019)
Cite as:  EWHC 3335 (Admin)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE SWEENEY
|- and -|
|PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF LIEGE (BELGIUM)||Respondent|
MS H HINTON (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE SINGH:
Factual and procedural background
Decision of the district judge
Grounds of appeal
Submissions for the applicant
Submissions for the respondent
The applications to adduce fresh evidence
Ground 2: section 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003
"The arrest and surrender of persons wanted for the exercise of criminal prosecution or for the execution of a sentence or a detention order between Belgium and the other Member States of the European Union are governed by this law."
"... a judicial decision issued by a competent judicial authority of a Member State of the European Union, referred to as the issuing judicial authority, for the arrest and surrender by the competent judicial authority of another Member State, called the executing authority, of a person wanted for the exercise of criminal prosecution or for the execution of a sentence or a detention order."
"When there is reason to believe that a person wanted for criminal prosecution is found in the territory of another Member State of the European Union, the investigating judge issues a European arrest warrant in keeping with the formalities and under the conditions stipulated under Articles 2 and 3..."
"When there is reason to believe that a person wanted for the purpose of serving a sentence or a detention measure is found in the territory of another Member State of the European Union, the King's Prosecutor issues a European arrest warrant in keeping with the formalities and under the conditions stipulated under Articles 2 and 3."
"If, in this case, the sentence or detention measure was pronounced in a decision taken by default, and if the wanted person had not been personally summoned nor otherwise informed of the date and place of the hearing that resulted in the decision made by default, the European arrest warrant indicates that the wanted person will have the possibility of filing opposition in Belgium and being judged in his presence."
"Judges are independent in the exercise of their jurisdictional competences. The public prosecutor is independent in conducting individual investigations and prosecutions, without prejudice to the right of the competent minister to order prosecutions and to prescribe binding directives on criminal policy, including policy on investigations and prosecutions..."
"Where those requirements are met, the executing judicial authority may therefore be satisfied that the decision to issue a European arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is based on a national procedure that is subject to review by a court and that the person in respect of whom that national arrest warrant was issued has had the benefit of all safeguards appropriate to the adoption of that type of decision, inter alia those derived from the fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles referred to in Article 1(3) of Framework Decision..."
The first ground of appeal: Article 3 ECHR
"All the safeguards that Belgium has undertaken to respect concerning the conditions of detention of [the applicant] in the prison of Lantin are not of a hypothetical nature but will be effectively implemented. This also includes that the surrendered person will be detained alone with sufficient individual cell space, a separated sanitary block and out-of-cell activities."