Castillo v Kingdom of Spain & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a citizen of the Kingdom of Spain, was arrested in The City on 25 April 2001 for possession of a false passport and subsequently sentenced to a short imprisonment. Following this, the Kingdom of Spain requested his extradition concerning three alleged terrorist offences committed in 1997. Permission to proceed under the Extradition Act 1989 was granted on 24 July 2001, and the Applicant was taken into custody pending the extradition decision.

The extradition requests involved three separate events with seven charges in total. The first request concerned an explosion at military barracks; the second involved an attempted arson at a bank using Molotov cocktails and petrol; the third related to an attempt to place an explosive under a police officer’s vehicle. The first request was withdrawn prior to the initial habeas corpus hearing.

The Applicant challenged the extradition on grounds including alleged bad faith and insufficiency of the charges. After initial hearings and representations to the Secretary of State, delays by the Kingdom of Spain in responding led to a further habeas corpus application in August 2003. The Kingdom of Spain later served evidence including statements from the Court dossier. The court considered the accuracy and fairness of the descriptions of conduct in the extradition requests, particularly focusing on the third request relating to the police officer’s car.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the extradition requests, particularly charges 5 to 7, were made in good faith within the meaning of section 11(3) of the Extradition Act 1989.
2. Whether the charges, as described, disclosed offences that would constitute crimes under UK law.
3. Whether the court should exercise its discretion to discharge the Applicant on any or all of the charges.
4. The proper interpretation and application of the requirement under the European Convention on Extradition to provide a fair and accurate description of the conduct alleged.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The description of the conduct in the third extradition request was seriously incomplete and misleading, creating a false impression of attempted murder or grievous bodily harm.
• The request failed to disclose that the police officer was inside his home, not near the car, and that the device required manual ignition and was not a timed bomb.
• The remnants of the explosive device were found some distance from the car, and no evidence showed anyone was near the device at the time of the explosion.
• The accusation was therefore not made in good faith.
• On a proper description of the conduct, the charges relating to attempted murder and causing serious bodily injury could not be sustained under UK law.
• The court should review the District Judge's committal decision in light of the new materials and discharge the Applicant accordingly.

Respondent's Arguments (Kingdom of Spain)

• The Secretary of State acted in good faith in granting authority to proceed based on the conduct described in the requests.
• The accusation was not made in bad faith, and the description of the conduct was sufficient for extradition purposes.
• The court should not entertain the habeas corpus application while representations were under consideration by the Secretary of State.
• The Applicant would receive a fair trial in Spain, and the withdrawal of one charge did not imply bad faith in relation to the others.
• The accusation includes the evidence supporting the request and the offence charged, and bad faith must relate to the accusation as a whole.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by examining the statutory framework, notably the Extradition Act 1989 and the European Convention on Extradition, emphasizing that evidential sufficiency is not required for extradition. The critical requirement is that the description of the conduct alleged must be fair and accurate as it forms the basis for the Secretary of State and the court's decisions.

Upon reviewing the materials, including the Spanish Court dossier, the court found that the description of the conduct in the third request was not a proper or fair description. Key facts such as the police officer’s location inside his home and the manual ignition mechanism of the device were omitted. These omissions materially affected the nature of the charges under UK law.

While charges relating to attempted murder and causing serious bodily injury (charges 6 and 7) could not be sustained given the accurate description of conduct, the charge of attempting to cause an explosion likely to endanger life (charge 5) remained valid as the device could have caused harm to anyone near the vehicle.

The court considered the meaning of "accusation" broadly, encompassing the evidence and process in the requesting state, and applied a generous interpretation of "good faith." Despite the lack of care in drafting the request, the court found no deliberate exaggeration or bad faith by those framing the request. The openness of the Spanish authorities in providing the dossier supported this conclusion.

Regarding the second request related to the bank, the court rejected the submission that it was made in bad faith as the complaints related to evidential matters rather than the description of conduct.

Under section 11(3), discharge requires bad faith in relation to all charges. Since bad faith was not established for the bank charges or charge 5, the statutory threshold for discharge on all counts was not met. Nonetheless, the court exercised its discretion to discharge the Applicant on charges 6 and 7, as these charges could not stand on a proper description of the conduct.

Holding and Implications

The court DISCHARGED the Applicant in respect of charges 6 and 7 (attempt to cause really serious bodily injury and attempted murder of the police officer) on the basis that the description of the conduct did not support these charges under UK law.

The application failed in respect of charges 1-3 and 5, which remained valid for extradition purposes.

The decision clarifies the importance of a fair and accurate description of conduct in extradition requests, reinforcing that while evidential sufficiency is not required, the description must not be misleading or incomplete in a way that affects the substantive charges under UK law. The court confirmed that lack of good faith must be shown in relation to each offence to warrant discharge under section 11(3) of the Extradition Act 1989.

No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case. The ruling directly affects the parties by limiting the charges on which extradition may proceed.