Read the Blog
Extradition post-Brexit: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?
On 9 November 2021 Advocate General Kokott handed down her opinion in respect of Case C-479/21 concerning Mr Sn and Mr Sd following a reference from the Irish Supreme Court which was made on 3 August 2021. Her opinion stated that the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement and TCA which ensure the continuation of the European arrest warrant regime in respect of warrants issued by the United Kingdom (“UK”) during the transition period are binding on Ireland.
If the Court of Justice follows this opinion, it would mean that any European arrest warrants issued by the UK Judicial Authority prior to or during the transition period, including where the individual was not arrested until after the transition period, are valid and binding on Ireland despite the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
Irish Supreme Court’s reference
The questions referred were as follows:
Mr Sd was arrested in Ireland under a European arrest warrant dated 20 March 2020 issued by the UK which sought his surrender in respect of a prison sentence of eight years. Mr Sd was arrested in Ireland on 9 September 2020 (before the end of the transition period). On 8 February 2021 the Irish High Court made an order for his surrender to the UK and he was committed to prison.
Mr Sn was arrested in Ireland on 25 February 2021 (after the end of the transition period) under a European arrest warrant dated 5 October 2020 issued by the UK (before the end of the transition period), which sought his surrender for the prosecution of 14 offences. He was remanded in custody pending extradition proceedings.
In February and March 2021, applications were made on behalf of the two requested persons seeking a determination under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland concerning the legality of their detention on the basis that the European arrest warrant regime no longer applied between Ireland and the UK. The application was refused and they appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered it possible that the arrangements set out in the agreements relating to the European arrest warrant regime are not binding on Ireland and referred the matter to the CJEU as an urgent matter (under Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice).
The Questions Arising
Essentially the court has been asked to determine whether Ireland is obliged to execute European arrest warrants issued by the UK, notwithstanding the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. This question required some technical analysis of the EU law behind the two relevant agreements (“the agreements”).
The AG began by noting that on the face of the agreements it appears that the execution of European arrest warrants is addressed by the provisions therein. However, she went on to consider the possible relevance of Protocol No 21 (to the TEU and TFEU adopted in the context of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007). Protocol 21 provides that Ireland is not bound by EU measures related to AFSJ, unless it expressly opts in to the measure in question; Ireland has not opted in. Accordingly, the question becomes: whether Ireland needed to have “opted in” to the provisions relating to the European arrest warrant [in the Withdrawal Agreement and TCA] in order for those provisions concerning the continuance of the European arrest warrant regime during the transition period and after to apply.
That question in turn depends on whether Protocol No 21 applies to the provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement 2020 and TCA. Protocol 21 will not apply to those provisions if the EU based the agreements on its external powers to conclude a withdrawal agreement (Article 50(2) TEU) and an association agreement (Article 217 TFEU) and not on its competence relating to the area of freedom, security and justice. Of central importance was the fact that the two surrender regimes (Article 50(2) TEU and Article 217 TFEU) did not create new obligations for Ireland but rather, extended existing ones.
Ireland’s obligations in respect of the European arrest warrant
Ireland’s obligations in respect of the European arrest warrant predated the Lisbon Treaty and Protocol 21 under Framework Decision 2002/582 and the amending Framework Decision 2009/299. Both are binding on Ireland even though Ireland has not explicitly notified the Council that it wished to take part in their adoption or “opted in”.
However, the UK was no longer a Member State at the time of issuing the two arrest warrants in the present case and so the Framework Decision 2002/584, which refers to the European arrest warrant in the context of cooperation between Member States, could not serve as the basis for their execution.
The obligations therefore appeared to derive from the Withdrawal Agreement which entered into force on 1 February 2020. The transition period ended on 31 December 2020 and Article 127 provides that EU law should be applicable to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period unless the Withdrawal Agreement provides otherwise (which it does not):
Article 62(1) of Part Three of the Withdrawal agreement covers on-going judicial cooperation proceedings in criminal matters and provides:
‘In the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom, the following acts shall apply as follows:
(b) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA … shall apply in respect of European arrest warrants where the requested person was arrested before the end of the transition period for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant, …;
Article 185 of the Withdrawal Agreement also provides that Member States may decide that they will not surrender their nationals to the United Kingdom. The Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Slovenia had made this decision at the relevant time but Ireland had not.
Finally, the TCA 2021 came into force on 1 May 2021. Title VII in Part Three of the TCA (Articles 596 to 632) establishes an extradition regime between the Member States and the United Kingdom. Article 632 provides that Title VII ‘shall apply in respect of European arrest warrants issued in accordance with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA … by a State before the end of the transition period where the requested person has not been arrested for the purpose of its execution before the end of the transition period’.
The AG robustly rejected the arguments that the European arrest warrant regime fell within the scope of Protocol No 21 which meant that Ireland was not required to participate: Protocol No 21 only applies in respect of measures that have been, or should have been, based on a competence derived from Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty. Conversely, a measure that touches on the area of freedom, security and justice will not be covered by the protocol if it is not necessary to base it on such a competence.
The opinion states that the agreements are based on the competence relating to the arrangements for a withdrawal (Article 50(2) TEU) and on the competence to conclude an association agreement (Article 217 TFEU). The competence is not based on matters relating to the AFSJ.
She further considered whether Article 62(1)(b) of the Withdrawal Agreement or Part Three Title VII of TCA (relating to extradition arrangements) should additionally have been based on a competence relating to the AFSJ. She rejected arguments that the predominant purpose test could not be applied when measures touch upon Protocol No 21 and noted that the Withdrawal Agreement must necessarily be able to deal with the full range of matters covered by EU law.
She concluded that Article 62(1)(b) of the Withdrawal Agreement is correctly based on Article 50(2) TEU and Part Three Title VII TCA on the basis of Article 217 TFEU alone. It is not necessary to combine that competence with a competence relating to the area of freedom, security and justice.
 Article 62(1)(b) and Article 185 of the Withdrawal Agreement apply and provide that Framework Decision 2002/584 will continue to apply in respect of the European arrest warrant.
 Article 632 of the TCA provides that the new extradition regime established by Part Three, Title VII, of that agreement is to apply to this scenario.
Kingsley Napley provides specialist advice for individuals and businesses subject to criminal and civil investigations relating to breaches of competition law. For further information on the issues raised in this blog post, please contact a member of our criminal team
Áine Kervick is an Associate in our Criminal Litigation team. She has a particular interest in the international dimension of criminal cases and advises individuals in respect of extradition requests and INTERPOL Red Notices. She is also experienced in acting for individuals in internal investigations with a focus on legal professional privilege in criminal investigations and has written a number of articles on the subject.
We’re pleased to announce that we’ll be hosting our annual conference on cross-border criminal law on Thursday 5 May 2022. This in-person event will take place in our London office and will focus on accountability for international crimes for both individuals and corporates. Click here to find out more how to register.
There can be little doubt that the failure of London Capital & Finance Plc, and the subsequent report by Dame Elizabeth Gloster, have significantly changed the FCA’s approach to the supervision of regulated firms and protection of consumers in an increasingly complex financial environment.
The Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 (COPOA) was enacted three years ago to give law enforcement agencies the power to directly obtain electronic data from service providers based outside the UK for the purpose of preventing, detecting and investigating serious crimes through the use of Overseas Production Orders (OPOs).
On 13 May 2022, the FCA published a final refusing Alexander Jon Compliance Consulting Ltd.’s (“AJCC”) application for authorisation to provide regulatory hosting services. There is no specific definition of what a regulatory host is, but the FCA generally regards it as a commercial arrangement whereby an authorised Principal firm appoints and oversees a number of unconnected Appointed Representatives (“ARs”) which operate across a range of markets.
We are delighted to present, as a guest blog, the thoughts and views of Dr Valentyn Gvozdiy, managing partner of Golaw in Kyiv. Dr Gvozdiy outlines the significant changes to criminal procedure that have been heralded by the Russian invasion of his country and the subsequent adoption of martial law.
On Thursday 5 May, Kingsley Napley hosted the 4th annual Cross-Border Criminal Law Conference, which focused on individual and corporate accountability for international crimes.
This quarterly update provides a summary of a selection number of news stories relating to health and safety investigations and prosecutions, published in the period January - March 2022.
Whilst it is anticipated that prosecutions under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (‘the Act’) will be exceptionally rare, the criminal sanctions set out in it are explicitly framed to create a “sufficiently robust deterrent to ensure compliance.” The provisions punish corporates and individual officers who connive or consent to commit an offence, as well as individual officers who are negligent (s.36). In addition, they are also extra-territorial (s.52), meaning that the scope of liability is particularly wide-ranging.
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of news stories in the period January 2022 – March 2022
The Prime Minister recently committed the UK’s support to achieving justice in respect of the war crimes allegations arising out of the Ukraine conflict. The conflict and associated allegations raise questions over the UK’s commitment and ability to bring prosecutions under the doctrine of “universal jurisdiction”. Universal jurisdiction describes the jurisdiction that is available in the national courts of many countries to prosecute individuals for the most serious international crimes, even if those crimes occurred abroad and neither the defendants nor victims have any connection to that country. Why only a few such prosecutions have taken place in the UK will be the topic of one of two panel discussions at Kingsley Napley’s Cross Border Criminal Law Conference on 5 May 2022.
This quarterly international criminal law update provides a summary of the news stories in the period January – March 2022. The relevance of international criminal law has been tragically highlighted by the current events in the Ukraine. This fast moving event has been covered below, along with a number of other international criminal law updates.
News broke last month that megastars Jay-Z, Meek Mill, Big Sean, Kelly Rowland and Fat Joe (among others) were supporting the introduction of a New York state law that aims to prevent the prosecution using rap lyrics in criminal trials.
On 28 February 2022, the UK Home Secretary Priti Patel announced to parliament that the UK would be ‘leading all international efforts’ to suspend Russia’s membership of INTERPOL.
This came moments before the Ukrainian minister of internal affairs, Denis Monastyrsky, made a public statement demanding Russia’s immediate expulsion from the organisation for “violating its basic principles and massive misuse of tools and services to cover up its crimes and persecute political enemies, particularly in Ukraine.”
The news is never short of horror stories involving travellers who find themselves detained in a foreign country. This is sadly a reality for thousands of British citizens who, for a variety of reasons, are being held in a prison abroad.
A new bill will be put forward to parliament tomorrow with the aim of increasing transparency of ownership of property in the UK. The introduction of this new Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill has been expedited following the sanctions announced last week, however the drive for change began over five years ago and that it is finally coming to fruition will be welcomed by many.
On 16 November the CJEU delivered its judgment following the publication of the Advocate General’s opinion on the UK-Ireland extradition questions which we wrote about here. The decision concerned the mechanisms for extradition to the UK from Ireland in two scenarios (1) under the terms of the withdrawal agreement from 1 February to 31 December 2020 and (2) under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (“TCA”) from 1 January 2021.
The judgment confirms the AG’s Opinion that Ireland is bound by the withdrawal agreement and the TCA (“the agreements”) in respect of extradition arrangements with the UK and accordingly extradition from Ireland to the UK post-Brexit will continue under those terms.
This blogs considers the recent corporate manslaughter conviction of Deco-Pak and two other recent corporate manslaughter cases, Bosley Mill and Aster Healthcare and what they tell us about the current approach to this offence. In January 2022 a garden supplies firm, Deco-Pak was found guilty of corporate manslaughter following a fatal accident at the Deco-Pak premises in Hipperholme, West Yorkshire on 14 April 2017.
The Medical Cannabis (Access) Bill (the ‘Bill’) aims to enable patients in England to access cannabis-based medicinal products (‘CBMPs’), such as nabiximols, more freely on the NHS. Although English law was changed in November 2018 to allow specialist doctors to prescribe cannabis (we have blogged about this here), very few people have been able to access NHS prescriptions which has left patients paying thousands of pounds a month for private prescriptions or unable to obtain treatment altogether. There are approximately 10,000 private prescriptions for CBMPs in the UK. In a paper published by BMJ Open in 2020, Professor David Nutt et. al. reported that thousands of UK patients were self-medicating with illicit cannabis-based products.
On 10 January 2020, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) became the anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) supervisor for UK cryptoasset firms. Two years in, how effectively is it performing its role as the gatekeeper of the new registration regime?
This quarterly environmental law update provides a summary of news stories published in the period October – December 2021.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility