Case No. UKUT-00294-(IAC)

[2015] EWHC 2305. This was the impetus for the issue of the fourth – current - EAW by the Spanish Judicial authority 14. The most recent judicial decision is that of the Divisional Court noted in [12] above which upheld the decision of Senior District Judge Riddle, dated 14 June 2016, ordering the Appellant’s extradition to Spain. We were informed that there is at present an undetermined application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. 15. The current, operative EAW, is dated 23 October 2015. It contains several references to “ETA”, a proscribed Basque terrorist organisation. It identifies, in section 2, the offences of (a) actively participating in a terrorist organisation or group or being part thereof and (b) falsifying a public, official or commercial document, contrary to specified provisions of the Spanish Codigo Penal. Both offences are punishable by imprisonment. In a later section of the EAW one finds the following detail: “[The Appellant] was set free in accordance with a ruling issued on April 2011 …. Subsequently, the same Division upheld an appeal lodged by the State Prosecutor and ordered the search and arrest of [the Appellant] who went underground and hid, initially, in an unidentified place in Spain. From there, he contacted the terrorist organisation ETA again so they would help him flee from Spain, thus making the search and arrest warrant against him ineffective. By doing so he accepted submission to the terrorist organisation’s instructions regarding what is known as the Group of Refugees [El Colectivo de Refugiados] , a branch that groups ETA militants together in countries other than Spain and France, placing himself at the disposal of ETA … Thus, around 19 April 2011, to evade the search warrant issued against him [the Appellant] sent a photograph of himself to the terrorist organisation ETA’s branch for forging documents [FAL] which belongs to ETA’s logistics department …. [which] forged six Spanish identification documents with his photograph and the following identities …. [names] …. Said documents, analysed by the Forensic Services, were of the same origin as other documents seized from several members of the terrorist organisation … The same documents were found on 29 June 2012 in the possession of [the Appellant] in the house he occupied with another member of the organisation [LS] at [London address] where they were arrested by the British police. ” The text continues: “ In addition, two forged driving permits in the names of [names] both of which had a photograph of [the Appellant] where seized from the latter. Moreover, two European health cards in the name of [names] were also found in his possession. ” Referring to the person with whom the Appellant was living in London, the EAW continues: “ Previously, [LS] had lodged [the Appellant] . Both men followed the guidelines received beforehand from the terrorist organisation ETA, in accordance with the groups internal rules and [its] so-called Protocol for Refugees ”. [“Lodged” in this context denotes providing accommodation.] 16. The EAW then addresses the issue of alleged membership of ETA: “ The presence of [the Appellant] in said place with the aforementioned individual is not a casual circumstance. Rather, it shows that [the Appellant] belongs to the terrorist organisation. The entire process by which an ETA militant goes underground is not due to an independent, individual decision. It obeys the organisation’s internal rules and the so-called Protocol for Refugees …. In the case of [the Appellant] , it meant a reintegration into the terrorist organisation when he was released from prison ”. The EAW then provides an outline of the evidence supporting the allegation that the Appellant is a member of ETA: police reports, the entry and search at the London address, items and documents seized, experts’ reports and police analyses and certain documents recovered from LS when searched in France following his arrest in 2008. 17. The identity of the requesting Spanish judicial authority is of some significance. It is the Juzgado Central de Instruccion (the Central Examining Magistrates’ Court). This indicates that the proceedings in Spain relating to the two offences of which the Appellant is suspected have not proceeded beyond the investigative phase and, in particular, have not reached the stage of indictment or prosecution, for the reason that the Appellant’s presence in the Court is a necessary prerequisite.