Assange kills off Pupino, but ambiguity remains – Alex Tinsley

7 June 2012 by

In last week’s judgment in Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court decided that the words ‘judicial authority’ in s 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 include prosecutors as well as courts. This was because the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) Framework Decision, to which the Part 1 of 2003 Act gave effect, uses the expression in that broad sense, and the presumption is that Parliament meant the same thing (summary here).

The EAW Framework Decision has always guided the interpretation of the Part 1 of the 2003 Act. Until Assange, there were two different reasons for this: (i) a domestic rule of statutory interpretation; and (ii) the rule expounded by the Court of Justice of the EU in Case C-105/03 Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino.

Under the domestic rule, when Parliament legislates to give effect to an international law obligation it is presumed to do so in full. So the courts assume that Parliament did not intend Part 1 of the 2003 Act to be inconsistent with the Framework Decision and that it intended to provide the level of cooperation the Decision required (Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67, at [8], per Lord Bingham).

The Pupino rule

Under the Pupino rule, national courts must interpret national law ‘as far as possible in light of the wording and purpose of a framework decision in order to attain the objectives it pursues’ (43). This ‘duty of conforming interpretation’ applies only to the EU’s old crime and policing laws – framework decisions – like the EAW. These were designed to be a comparatively weak form of law, but Pupino strengthened their legal force by requiring courts to try to interpret national law in such a way as to achieve the objectives of framework decisions (a similar duty applies with directives under the principle in Case C-106/89 Marleasing).

Pupino has been followed in the UK since the House of Lords decision in Dabas [2007] UKHL 6. At issue there was a provision of the 2003 Act requiring an EAW to be accompanied by a separate certificate, which the EAW Framework Decision does not require. Lord Hope, giving the lead judgment, assumed Parliament had intended this to be protection against carelessly issued EAWs (at [35]). However, applying Pupino, he noted that by imposing this requirement unilaterally the UK would frustrate the objectives of the EAW Framework Decision, which was supposed to operate uniformly (at [42]-[43]). So it was held the EAW itself could serve as the certificate (at [44]).

However, Lord Mance’s speech in Assange demonstrates conclusively (at [201] to [218]) that Pupino does not in fact bind the UK. EU law, and the rulings of the CJEU, bind the UK only because s 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 gives them that force. The scope of s 2 is carefully defined by s 1, and it does not include the EU’s old treaty provisions on crime and policing, and therefore the framework decisions passed under them. So Pupino, which applied to that area specifically, does not bind the UK.

This removes one of the two bases on which courts have drawn on the EAW Framework Decision when interpreting the 2003 Act. To consider whether this makes any difference, it is best to consider a working example.

Under the 2003 Act, an ‘accusation’ EAW can only be issued for the arrest of a person ‘for the purpose of being prosecuted’. This excludes EAWs issued prematurely for the purposes of investigation, which can lead to injustice for the person concerned (see, for example, the case of Fair Trials International’s client Michael Turner). One recurrent issue before English courts is the whether EAWs issued at the earlier stages of inquisitorial proceedings are actually for the purposes of investigation or prosecution.


French criminal procedure (for serious offences like murder) can be described thus: (1) the prosecutor submits a réquisitoire introductif to initiate formal investigations; (2) if and when the examining magistrate considers that there is ‘strong or concordant evidence’, s/he proceeds to mise en examen, formally placing the suspect under examination (for a useful description of French procedure, see the Opinion of Advocate-General Sharpston QC in Case 27/09 PMOI, at 142).

In McCormack [2008] EWHC 1453, the issue was whether an EAW issued at the réquisitoire stage was ‘for the purposes of being prosecuted’ within the meaning of s 2(3) of the 2003 Act. Maurice Kay LJ found that it was, relying primarily on the common law approach, noting that statutes implementing extradition agreements had to be interpreted generously so as to facilitate extradition (at [6]-[14]). He found additional support in Pupino, stating that the Court would subvert the purpose of the EAW Framework Decision if it were to prevent extradition to France unless mise en examen had been reached (at [15]-[16]). However, there is no suggestion that, ‘but for’ Pupino, the outcome would have been different.

Little or no margin left

Assange would seem to confirm that there is little or no margin between the domestic presumption and the Pupino duty: the conclusion that ‘judicial authority’ in the 2003 Act had the same broad meaning as the expression in the EAW Framework Decision was reached on the basis of the domestic rule alone, without recourse to Pupino. Indeed, though Lord Kerr recognises (at [112]) that Pupino has stronger ‘injunctive force’, their Lordships indicate with varying degrees of certainty that, without Pupino, ‘the general presumption that the UK legislates in compliance with international obligations would produce the same result’ (at [98], per Lord Brown; see also [10], per Lord Phillips PSC, [112], per Lord Kerr and [121]-[122], per Lord Dyson).

So the UK courts will not necessarily take a narrower view of the 2003 Act now Pupino is unavailable. However, Lord Mance’s speech at least clarifies what rule applies. It also clarifies the UK’s excessively complex and ambiguous position in relation to EU crime and policing law. Sadly, this comes only shortly before the UK’s big 2014 decision, when the position will change again. But for the next two years at least, we know where we stand.

Alex Tinsley is the Strategic Caseworker at Fair Trials International, a human rights charity which provides assistance to those facing criminal charges in a country other than their own. Alex was the 2010-11 Sir Peter Bristow Scholar at the Court of Justice of the EU.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;

  1. The supreme court has torpedoed its own credibility.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: