AC-2023-LON-003019 - [2025] EWHC 1851 (Admin)

The agreed chronology of relevant matters is as follows:

The Judicial Authority placed an alert on the EU Schengen Information System (“SIS II”) prior to issuing the Interpol diffusion request on 22 March 2022. That order of priorities indicates that seeking extradition from the EU/UK had been considered from the outset. The effect of placing the SIS II alert was that whenever the Requested Person entered an EU Member State the alert was always going to be triggered. The chain of events which led to the issuing of the TACA Warrant began on 14 March 2022 when the SIS II alert was placed. Ms Hill did not seek to suggest that there was anything improper about the SIS alert being placed.

The Judge was entitled to conclude that the seven month gap between Interpol Jerusalem notifying the German authorities of the Appellant’s presence in Israel and his subsequent arrest was relatively short in the context of extradition proceedings. Article 87b of Interpol’s data processing rules refers to the requesting authorities acting ‘immediately’ after a suspect has been located. However, the Article also refers to doing so “within time limits specified for the case in question”. No information was put before this Court as to the relevant time limit. However, in assessing delay, it is relevant to consider the complexity of the alleged offending which relates to cyber trading and a money laundering network throughout Europe over a period of approximately five years. Moreover, as the Judge observed in her ruling, the fact of the matter is the Appellant precipitated his arrest by leaving Israel to travel to the UK.

The Appellant’s extradition has been sought pursuant to the safeguards provided by the Extradition Act and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. As was common ground, there is no obligation on the part of the prosecuting authorities to pursue extradition from Israel and a person under investigation is not entitled to be arrested in his home country.

The Judge was entitled to conclude that the material falls far short of the cogent evidence required to justify a finding that the conduct was capable of amounting to an abuse of process and did not call for a response from the Judicial Authority (Tollman v USA [2006] EWHC 2256 (Admin) at [84]).

The Appellant seeks permission to adduce the fresh evidence listed at paragraph [24] above and which may be summarised as set out below.