Supplementary Information as a Cure-All: The Scottish Confirmation that Missing “Place of Offence” Details Do Not Invalidate a Part 1 Extradition Warrant

Introduction

In Application for Leave to Appeal Under Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 by Karol Meger v. The Lord Advocate ([2025] HCJAC 26), the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary (Lords Doherty, Wise and Ericht) confronted a narrow yet recurring extradition problem: does the failure of an arrest warrant to specify the place where an offence was committed render the warrant invalid, or can the defect be rectified by later “supplementary information” supplied by the issuing State? The case involved:

Applicant: Karol Meger, a Polish national convicted in Poland of robbery.
Respondent: The Lord Advocate, representing the Republic of Poland.
Key Issue: Whether the Polish conviction warrant, lacking the place of participation, was a valid “Part 1 warrant” under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003).

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that—consistent with EU–UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA) principles—the missing data could be cured by later clarification under section 202 EA 2003. The judgment establishes a Scottish authority that “place-of-offence” omissions are curable defects rather than fatal flaws, aligning domestic law with post-Brexit extradition architecture.

Summary of the Judgment

The court granted leave to appeal (a procedural prerequisite) but dismissed the substantive appeal.
It assumed, without deciding, that the place of participation forms part of the “particulars of the conviction” required by section 2(6)(b) EA 2003 when read with Article 606(1)(e) TCA.
Applying Bob-Dogi, Gołuchowski and Alexander, the court held that supplementary information—here, an email from the Regional Court in Gdańsk confirming “Tczew” as the locus—validly cured the defect.
The warrant was therefore a valid Part 1 warrant; the sheriff’s extradition order stood.

In-Depth Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Dabas v Spain [2007] UKHL 6
Lord Hope suggested that a warrant defective under section 2 cannot be “eked out” by extraneous material. The instant court explained that later European jurisprudence had overtaken this strict view.
Criminal Proceedings against Bob-Dogi (C-241/15) [2016] 1 WLR 4583
Established that missing information in an EAW can be supplied later unless the absence reveals a fundamental, irreparable flaw (e.g., no domestic arrest warrant exists).
Gołuchowski v District Court in Elbląg [2016] UKSC 36
Lord Mance clarified the distinction between “formal” and “substantive” omissions, holding that section 202 allows post-issue information to cure formal defects.
Alexander v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Marseilles [2017] EWHC 1392 (Admin)
Described a “sea change” after the UK opted back into the Framework Decision, approving a pragmatic approach to missing particulars and downplaying the rigid formal/substantive division.
Later English authorities (Litvinchuk, Jipa) treated supplementary information as incorporated into the warrant unless the document is a “nullity”. The Scottish court adopts the same stance.

2. Legal Reasoning of the High Court

The court’s reasoning followed four sequential steps:

Statutory Interpretation in Light of International Obligations.
Section 2(6)(b) EA 2003 must be read consistently with Article 606(1)(e) TCA (mirroring Article 8 Framework Decision), requiring “time, place and degree of participation”.
Section 202 as the Vehicle for Supplementary Information.
Section 202 permits “any other document” from a category 1 territory to be received in evidence. Via section 29 EU (Future Relationship) Act 2020, Article 613 TCA (the successor to Article 15 FD) directs UK courts to seek missing particulars “as a matter of urgency”.
Lacuna vs. Nullity.
Borrowing the test from Alexander, the court distinguished a lacuna (isolated omission) from a “wholesale failure”. A warrant that otherwise satisfies the statutory schema and is not contradictory falls in the former category and can be cured.
Absence of Prejudice.
The applicant knew the locus (he was tried in person) and faced no impairment of his statutory or Convention rights. Hence there was no injustice in allowing rectification.

3. Potential Impact

Scottish Harmonisation with English Authority. The High Court expressly “respectfully agreed” with paragraphs 73-76 of Alexander, cementing a UK-wide standard despite separate legal systems.
Reduced Technical Challenges. Defence arguments aiming to exploit minor drafting errors in EAWs/Part 1 warrants will face higher hurdles; courts are encouraged to request clarification first.
Clarity for Post-Brexit Extradition. By mapping TCA Articles 606/613 onto section 2/202 EA 2003, the court offers guidance for practitioners navigating the new treaty landscape.
Administrative Practice. Issuing States may feel less pressure for flawless first drafts, so long as they can promptly supply missing data, potentially accelerating surrender procedures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Part 1 Warrant: An arrest warrant from a “category 1 territory” (mainly EU & allied states) governed by EA 2003 Part 1, enabling streamlined extradition.
Section 2(6) Particulars: Mandatory data items—identity, conviction details, other warrants, sentence particulars—mirroring Article 606 TCA form.
Section 202 Documents: A gateway clause letting the court admit “other documents” (emails, certificates) to supplement the warrant.
Lacuna vs. Wholesale Failure: A lacuna is a narrow gap (e.g., missing place/date); a wholesale failure is a virtually blank or contradictory warrant. Only the latter is incurable.
TCA Articles 606 & 613: The post-Brexit equivalents of Articles 8 & 15 Framework Decision governing warrant content and the court’s power to seek clarification.

Conclusion

The Meger decision confirms that, in Scottish extradition law, the omission of the “place of offence” in a Part 1 conviction warrant is a curable defect. The ruling reconciles the Extradition Act 2003 with the Trade and Co-operation Agreement, aligns Scotland with English precedent, and signals an era where substance trumps technicality. Future appellants will need to demonstrate either a truly “wholesale” deficiency or resulting prejudice to defeat an extradition request on formality grounds. Hence, the judgment stands as a robust endorsement of pragmatic mutual legal assistance in a post-Brexit legal order.