Presumption that there was a decision by German authorities to charge and try man for murder is not rebutted

European arrest warrant – European law - prosecutorial warrant – German authorities seeking the surrender of man to face trial for murder - whether the Public Prosecutor, who issued the warrant, can be considered a judicial authority – objected to his surrender on the basis that no decision has been made to place him on trial - Act requires the High Court to refuse to surrender a person, if the High Court is satisfied that a decision has not been made to charge the person with, and try him or her for, the offence for which he or she is sought in the issuing state - issuing judicial authority sent a “confirmation undertaking” – undertaking states that he is to be charged and tried – whether formal decision had been made – argued that there was merely a preliminary investigation – still in investigative phase – whether there was cogent evidence of the decision to charge - principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust and confidence in the judicial authorities of other member states - the issuing judicial authority has given a direct confirmation that the respondent is to be charged for the alleged offence of murder and that a decision has been made to try him - confirmation/undertaking was unsolicited by the central authority - decision has been made to try him - Court must accept the clear statement by the German authorities that a decision has been made to charge and try him with this offence of murder – claimed that the delay in issuing the warrant of 20 years constituted a breach of his constitutional rights – abuse of process - argued that his surrender constitutes an impermissible interference with his family and private life rights – culpable delay – explanation for the delay – seriousness of the offence - high public interest in surrendering him – only became a suspect in 2016 – quick progress - not disproportionate or unjust to surrender him - he has not met the test to establish that there is an egregious defect in the system of justice in Germany that requires his surrender to be prohibited because he is at risk of not having a fair trial – no abuse of process – whether the the Public Prosecutor a Judicial Authority within the meaning of the Act of 2003 and the 2002 Framework Decision - concept of a judicial authority - presumption that a designation of an institution or person as an issuing judicial authority is in compliance with both the Act of 2003 and the 2002 Framework Decision – cogent evidence required to rebut the presumption – evidence given not sufficient to rebut the presumption – independence - explicit assurance in this case that no instruction has been given either by the Ministry of Justice to the Director of Public Prosecutions nor by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Senior Public Prosecutor of Lubeck Public Prosecutor’s office - Court is satisfied that German law provides for the independence of Public Prosecutors - no interference with the independence of the Prosecutor - Court is satisfied that he has not rebutted the presumption that the Public Prosecutor of Lubeck is a judicial authority within the meaning of the 2002 Framework Decision and the Act of 2003 – Court orders his surrender.