High Court, on foot of a European Arrest Warrant, orders the surrender of a citizen of both the UK and Ireland to the UK for prosecution for the offences of manslaughter, conspiracy to commit human trafficking and conspiracy to commit unlawful immigration, where he is alleged to have driven the trailer unit in which a number of Vietnamese migrants died whilst being transported, on the grounds that: the warrant contained sufficient information; the additional information was admissible; there was no manifest error; and the Court was satisfied as to correspondence.
European arrest warrant – prosecutorial warrant – surrender to UK sought for prosecution for manslaughter, conspiracy to commit human trafficking and conspiracy to commit unlawful immigration - particulars of the offences - points of objection - additional information - alleged that the respondent drove the trailer unit in which the deceased were being transported - exact time and place of death is not known - material downloaded from those phones demonstrates that some of the victims died in UK territorial waters - wealth of circumstantial evidence - made no effort to contact police in the UK or other law enforcement authorities – additional information did not emanate from judicial authority - not admissible without formal proof - additional information purports to expand to an impermissible degree the facts and matters relied upon by the applicant – extraterritoriality - respondent is a British citizen and an Irish citizen – alleged lack of correspondence in relation to conspiracy to commit human trafficking – warrant is void for uncertainty - principle of judicial supervision - where additional information has not been provided by the issuing judicial authority, it is necessary to consider that information by reference to all of the information placed before the Court by the competent authorities, including the issuing judicial authority, of the requesting state - reasonable inference to draw that the entire contents of the letter are being provided on behalf of the relevant judicial authority – warrant subject to the judicial scrutiny and supervision envisaged by the Framework Decision - additional information, while providing considerably more detail than the EAW, is in no way inconsistent with or contradictory of the information provided in the EAW – argued that the alleged offences were not committed in the issuing state - whether or not the authorities in the United Kingdom would be entitled to prosecute for an offence of manslaughter if the situation were reversed - reciprocity as required - even if some of the victims died outside of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, their deaths constitute an offence under the laws of the State - clearly asserted that the agreement constituting the conspiracy was made in the United Kingdom and that being the case surrender in respect of this offence is not prohibited - not necessary that every detail of the proposed evidence by means of which the circumstances in question might be established in Court should be provided - necessary to demonstrate correspondence in relation to the manslaughter offences and the offence of conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration – manifest error - entirely a matter for the requesting state whether or not to invoke Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision in respect of an offence - no manifest error – ticked box - not necessary for the applicant to demonstrate correspondence as regards the offence of conspiracy to commit a human trafficking offence – relevant facts – court satisfied as to correspondence in relation to offence of conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration - correspondence with the alleged manslaughter - charge of manslaughter by criminal negligence - Court is entitled to draw such inferences as are reasonable to draw from the information provided - while much of the case to be made against the respondent is based on circumstantial evidence, nonetheless, if all of the acts alleged , expressly or by inference, occurred in this jurisdiction, the respondent would be found to have committed an unlawful and dangerous act sufficient to constitute the offence to manslaughter in this jurisdiction - no doubt at all that, at the date of the issue of the EAW, the CPS had the intention to charge and try the respondent with the offence of manslaughter –