High Court: Man surrendered to Spain on drugs charges after unsuccessful challenge to European Arrest Warrant

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

The European arrest warrant (hereafter EAW) was issued in April 2013 and was endorsed by the High Court in February 2016 pursuant to the provisions of s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.

Mr Mangan objected to his surrender on a number of grounds, including:

Inadequate detail

Under this heading, the respondent pointed to a number of flaws in either the original EAW or in the translation provided to this Court. These are as follows:-

While the Court accepted that “some of the detail could either have been provided in the original EAW or the translation could have been more carefully carried out”, the Court rejected each one of these claims about the lack of necessary detail in the European arrest warrant.

The Court was satisfied that there was “no lack of clarity, no fundamental defect or other inadequacy in any essential matter” that amounted to a basis for refusing surrender.; and that furthermore, there was “no injustice in surrendering by virtue of any of the matters raised when considered individually or collectively”.

Unfair prejudice

It was submitted that, in light of the history of the proceedings, which included the fact that Mr Mangan had been remanded in custody following the order of surrender on foot of a UK EAW, he would be unfairly prejudiced by his surrender to Spain. The specific point was made that if the Spanish EAW had been endorsed at the time when he was in custody on the UK EAW, he would have been in a position to have had that period of detention deducted from any potential sentence that he may receive in Spain, if surrendered.

Justice Donnelly explained that “the operation of the law meant that the Spanish EAW could not be proceeded with at the time that Mr Mangan was also being sought on the UK European arrest warrant… there was nothing unlawful in the manner in which his surrender was ordered to the UK, nor was there a breach of his right to liberty when sought on the Spanish EAW which could not be proceeded with in light of the application from the UK”. In those circumstances, there was no unfair prejudice which would prohibit his surrender to Spain.

Furthermore, there was nothing to suggest the Spanish courts “would not or could not take into account his time in custody on the UK EAW in the circumstances”.

Privacy

The main claim was that his right to respect for his privacy protected by the Constitution and by the ECHR was breached by Spain as a result of telephone tapping and that his surrender was therefore prohibited under s. 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Mr Mangan also claimed that his rights under Article 2 of the ECHR, i.e. his right to life, and his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, i.e. his right to respect for his private and family life, would be violated if he was surrendered to Spain.

The Court was satisfied that the respondent has not established that his constitutional rights or indeed his ECHR rights would be violated by ordering his surrender to Spain as a result of as a result of telephone tapping

Conclusion

Rejecting all of the points of objection filed, the Court, being otherwise satisfied that the requirements of s. 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 had been met, made an Order for Mr Mangan’s surrender to Spain.