News Update from Neelu Berry/The 20-Page Alien Judgment Handed to Judge Nina Tempia: Treasonous Judgement Proof of Conspiracy to Assassinate 3,500 Cancer Patients in US, UK+France by Criminalizing GcMAF/GOleic

Ramola D/Posted 10/11/2019

Neelu Berry, pharmacist whistleblower, activist, and reporter, provides this news update this morning on what transpired at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court November 7, 2019 in the case of David Noakes providing lifesaving GcMAF to cancer patients and others, what it really means, and the text of the 20-page written judgment which Judge Tempia openly disclosed was handed to her from an alien party whom she did not name. Please see Open Travesty in UK…for context on this continuing saga of corruption, entrenched power, and the scandalous suppression of a vital cancer cure, GcMAF, by apparent organized crime syndicates operating within the halls of ill-gotten power under the facade of public-service institutions.

Image: Daily Mirror

News Update from Neelu Berry | 11/11/2019

This is the mysterious text from an alien source which has been allegedly typed as written by Judge Nina Tempia, District Judge of Westminister Magistrates Court, handed to Citizen David Noakes in Court 1 at 10.30am by Judge Tempia, minutes after she confirmed, in front of 30 witnesses in the public gallery, that it was not written by her and therefore could not be changed by her even though there is perjury.

This alien judgement forgets to mention that GcMAF is a naturally occurring protein and therefore does not require licensing by FDA or MHRA or OCLAESP or any other synthetic drug manufacturer licensing authority.

There was a public outcry on the alien decision to extradite David Noakes in 10 days from 7th Nov 2019 and charge him costs even though his bank accounts are frozen and he is a victim of State Pension and Benefit Denial Frauds – he is homeless and penniless like all whistleblowers in the UK.

The UK State is assassinating 500 Cancer patients every day, in conspiracy with France state’s 500 and USA’s 2,500 deaths per day, totally unnecessarily, by denying GcMAF and GOleic.


69.The RP is not of good character in the UK.


Factors against extradition

70. The RP has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

71. The RP suffers from depression, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure.

72. His eyesight deteriorated whilst in prison and he lost a significant amount of weight.











1. Mr David Noakes, the Requested Person, (“RP”) is sought by an

accusation extradition request under a European Arrest Warrant

(“EAW”) issued by the Public Prosecutor at the High Instance Court of

Paris, the Issuing Judicial Authority (“IJA”) on 9th March 2017. The

EAW was certified by the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) on 13th April


2. The warrant seeks the RP’s surrender to face trial for 9 offences

concerning the manufacture and sale, without requisite government

authorization, of a product called “GcMAF”, Globulin component

Macrophage Activating Factor.

3. France is designated a “territory 1” country under the Extradition Act

2003 (“EAW”).

4. The RP was arrested on the EAW on t5th April 2017 and appeared at

Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 17th April 2017. He did not consent

to his extradition and the hearing was opened. The RP was released on

conditional bail. He was then charged with offences in the UK which

concerned the sale of the same products which form the basis of the


warrant and a money laundering offence. He pleaded guilty to the

offences and was sentenced to l5-months imprisonment on 27th

November 2018.

5. At the final hearing on 31st October 2019, the IJA was represented by

Mr Seifert and the RP represented himself after dismissing his legal

team. Mr Seifert told me the warrant the RP faces is an identical

warrant to that faced by Lynda Thyer alleging the same offences. Her

extradition was ordered on 4th May 2018. In a judgment dated 10th May

2019, Supperstone J, in the High Court, dismissed her appeal against


6. At the final hearing the RP did not identify himself when he was asked

his name and date of birth, responding that he was a common man and

had a common law birth certificate. However, I was advised that

identity had not been an issue at the initial hearing on 17th April 2017.

7. I asked the RP if he had seen the Opening Note prepared on behalf of

the IJA and was told a copy had been given to him but he had refused

to receive it or to read it.

8. I asked the RP to confirm what the challenges were to his extradition

and he said the arguments he wished to raise were:

(a) This court did not have jurisdiction to deal with his case;

(b) Section 2 of the Act, in that the issuing prosecutor was corrupt, had

no authority to issue the warrant; that it was not based on evidence

and this court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the case;

(c) Double Jeopardy in that he had already served a prison sentence for

the same offences in the UK.

(d) Abuse of process, the warrant having been issued by a corrupt

public prosecutor

9. I asked him if he was going to rely on any further issues raised in the

skeleton argument prepared by his previous legal representatives and

I went through prison conditions, his personal circumstances and his

medical/psychological health. He reiterated that the only matters he

was relying on were those outlined above.

10. The RP made submissions and left court saying he did not want to stay

to be involved proceedings because the court did not have any power to


hear the case. He said he knew what the court’s decision would be and

would appeal. I told him the case would continue in his absence. He


11. The RP was given bail to attend the next hearing on 7th November 2019

when my decision would be delivered.

12. I will deal with the submissions made by the parties when I deal with

the specific challenges raised. I will also go through the EA.


13. This is an accusation warrant and is based on a domestic arrest warrant

issued on 2nd March 2017 by Jean-Luc Gadaud, Vice President in

charge of Investigation at the High Instance Court of Paris for the

purpose of criminal prosecution.

14. The warrant states that the maximum sentence for the offences is 10

years imprisonment.

15. Box E sets out 9 offences. All the alleged offences were committed

between 1st June 2015 and 20th February 2017 in Cherbourg, Octeville,

Digosville and Saint-Pierre L’Eglise in the department of Manche 50,


(1) The first offence is fraud in an organised gang and the Framework

List is ticked for “swindle”. The RP claimed the products “GcMAF”

and “GOleic” were medicines which could either prevent or cure

cancer, autism, AIDS, Lyme disease, herpes, multiple sclerosis,

psoriasis, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. The products were sold over

the internet with the RP being in charge of a network which

manufactured and sold the unauthorised products around the


(2) The second offence is set out at Box E (II) and concerned the illegal

practice of a pharmacist, whereby the RP carried out the operations

meant for a pharmacist without the necessary accreditation.

(3) The third offence is set out at Box E (II) and is the marketing or

distribution of the products described as medicines under the

names Gemaf and Goelic which had preventive and curative

qualities and were advertised over the internet.


(4) The fourth offence is set at Box E (II) and concerns the advertising

of an unauthorised medicine under the name Gemaf and Goelic

over the internet whereby they were presented as having preventive

or curative qualities for specific illnesses.

(S) Offence 5 is set out at Box E (II) whereby, over the internet, the RP

is said to have fraudulency described the curative qualities of the

drugs. The substantive paragraph in Box E states that the products

were declared at customs as cosmetics.

(6) Offence 6 is set out at Box E (II) and alleges possession, in an

organised gang, of medical products, Gemaf and Goelic, to be used

by human beings without any legal support and no marketing


(7) Details of the seventh offence are found in Box E (II) and concerns

the employment by dissimulator of activity in an organised gang.

The RP did not have a registration number with the Trade and

Companies Register or Employment Repertoire, failed to fill in

registration forms with the health insurance or tax administration.

(8) Offence 8 is found in Box E (II) and relates to opening a

pharmaceutical establishment, namely laboratories to manufacture

medicines under the names of Gemaf and Goelic without

authorisation. The RP is said to have opened a laboratory and

packaging for the products in France.

(9) Details of offence 9 are to be found at Box E (II) and concerns

biomedical research without consent and without the authorisation

of the competent authority.


16. This has been prepared by Jean-Luc Gadaud, the Vice President in

charge of the investigation at the High Instance Court in Paris.

17. The information contained in that document is relevant to section 12A

of the Act. I will deal with this as part of my assessment because I have

the information and I have to satisfy myself there are no bars to



18. The information states that the RP was informed of the investigation

and summonsed to appear before investigators. He failed to do so

despite agreeing to attend. He sent his solicitor who indicated he was

waiting for a EAW. Because of his voluntary absence a domestic arrest

warrant was issued on 2nd March 2017 as this was the only way he could

be brought to France because his precise address was unknown and it

appeared he was refusing to appear at court on a summons. The French

authorities considered him to “be on the run”.

19. According to the French code of penal practice, the French magistrate

cannot proceed with the investigation of a person without having

allowed him the possibility of hearing from him in the presence of his

solicitor. He cannot be questioned unless he is physically present and

therefore his absence has prevented him putting forward an

explanation about the allegations against him.

20.The information also sets out the RP’s role in the commission of the

offences. In December 2015 the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products

Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) informed the central office of

Environment and Public Health Matters that the products, GcMAF and

GOleic, were being manufactured and marketed from France via the

internet throughout the world without marketing authorisation.

21. ERUOJUST was involved with several investigatory bodies throughout

Europe. The RP’s production sites were dismantled in the UK and he

reinstalled them in France and other European countries.

22. The RP directed the network in charge of manufacturing, packaging

and selling the non-authorised products around the world. He also

relied on several companies registered in the Netherlands.

23. The financial investigation revealed the flow of money between the

companies and persons in France. The packaging site and

manufacturing laboratory was set up in France following the

dismantling of sites in Great Britain. The RP personally delivered the

products from the Cherbourg Maupertuis airport aboard his private


24.The RP employed several accomplices in Guernsey to manage the

orders and financial flows. The daily running of the business on French


territory was managed by the RP’s partner, Lynda Thyer, in whose

home was found accounting documents in respect of the manufacturing

and sales activities in her home during a search. During an operation in

Cherbourg on 20th February 2017 a number of items were seized,

including, amongst other things, cash, a hidden laboratory and stock

which was ready to be shipped, with an estimated sales value of

3,150,000 Euros.

25. In the past 18 months more than 5,400 packages had been sold from

France’ The products were declared at customs as cosmetics valued at

15 Euros and were generally sold for a 450 Euros for a 02 ml bottle and

each package contained several vials.

26. The warrant only concerns conduct which occurred in France from lsr

June 2015 and 2oth February 2oL7 and not those acts concerned in the

investigation and therefore there is no risk of double prosecution.

27. The investigation was initiated in paris or1 7th April zot6after British

authorities informed the French authorities that the Rp,s activities

were continuing in France after the dismantling of his activities in

Great Britain.

28. An Investigating Magistrate was appointed to pursue an investigation

after an introductory indictment was issued on 8th December 2016.

29. Sufficient charges were collected against the RP during 2016 and were

confirmed in February 2017 when several of his accomplices were


30. In response to the question as to why there has been a delay in issuing a

decision to prosecute being made, the information states that it is solely

the RP’s refusal to appear by summons before the French authorities

that accounts for the fact that he is not currently under investigation.

31. The RP was contacted by telephone and e mail. He answered e mails

but never told the authorities his address.

32. The information also sets out the maximum sentences for the nine

offences of which the RP is accused:

(1) Aggravated fraud in an organised gang: 10 years.

(2) Aggravated deception in an organised gang: 7 years.

(3) Illegal practice of a pharmacy: 2 years.


(4) Marketing without authorisation to market medicine with these

circumstances that the acts were carried out by internet and by an

organised gang and of nature to entail danger for humans;7 years

(5) Advertising of products qualified as unauthorised medicines with

these circumstances that the acts were carried out by internet and

by an organised gang and of nature to entail danger for humans; 7


(6) Holding in an organised Bang, without the pertinent supporting

documents, products qualified as medicines for human usage: act

deemed as contraband importation: 10 years.

(7) Opening of pharmaceutical establishments without the

authorisation of the National Agency for the Safety of Medicine and

Health Products: 2 years.

(8) Biomedical research without authorisation: 3 years.

(g) Concealed work (absence of declaration of employees and activity)

in an organised gang: 10 years.

33.A record of the investigation into the RP and Ms Thyer has been


(1) On 24th February 2017 they were called on their mobile phones and

invited to attend the investigators’ office to be interviewed on 28th

February 2017. They agreed to attend and the invitation was

formally sent to them to the e mail addresses they supplied. On 27th

February 2017 they were contacted by telephone as they had not

confirmed they would be attending. On this occasion they were

telephoned. The RP failed to answer his phone and Ms Thyer

requested a delay which was refused. A further e mail was sent.

Their UK solicitor responded and said they would be interviewed

in the presence of their legal representative and requested more

time to instruct a specialist lawyer.

(2) On 1st March zorT Jeremie Manchuel appeared before a judicial

police officer. Neither the RP nor Ms Thyer attended the

appointment and their lawyer informed that the RP had been

arrested the previous week in the UK and given their fear of being


prosecuted for the same offences in France and the UK, they would

prefer to contest extradition to France.


34. This information has been supplied to confirm which prison the RP will

be accommodated in if he is extradited and the conditions he will face. I

have set this out because it is information that is before me and I will

deal with this in my judgment.

35. The document confirms the following:

(1) If extradited, the RP will be detained and either Fleur-Merogis or

Fresnes, men’s district.

(2) He will be accommodated in at least 3m2 and will be housed in a

cell of 9 or 1om2 including sanitary annexes, which were designed

for one person.

(3) At Fresnes Prison single cells measures between 9 and 1om2

including sanitary facilities. Each detainee will have a minimum of

4m2 excluding sanitary facilities. Fresnes has two cells which

measures between 14 and 1om2 and can accommodate inmates with

reduced mobility.

(4) At Fleury-Mergois the short stay prison has cells which measures

between 9 and 10m2 and have at least 4m2 per person. In double

cells each detainee has at least 6m2. For those with reduced

mobility there are larger cells.

(5) The document also contains information about the amount of time

detainees are out of their cells, visiting sessions, activities,

mealtimes, and the control of rodents and bed bugs.


36. I have read the warrant, further information dated 3rd May 2017 and

19th August 2019, the IJA’s Opening Note dated 18th September 2019,

the RP’s proof of evidence dated 27th June 2019, documents setting out

the RP’s submissions dated 10th, 16th and 19th October 2019 and

undated documents headed “In the Westminster Magistrates’ Court on

3rst October 2019″,”The European Arrest Warrant is unconstitutional”,


“Neither Lyn Thyer nor I (David Noakes) were involved with GcMAF in

France”, the Magna Carta, “Common law courts Great Britain and

International dated 3rst August 2019, common law birth certificate and

psychiatric report dated 24th June 2019 and Dr Forrester’s psychiatric

report dated 26th June 2019 and the sentencing remarks of HHJ

Lorraine-Smith at Southwark Crown Court. I was also referred to the

judgment of Supperstone J in Lynda Thyer V Public Prosecutor at the

High Instance Court of Paris, France [2019] EWHC 1185 (Admin).


37.I am satisfied I have the power to determine this case. I do not accpet

the submission that under the Magna Carta (clause 38) I do not have

jurisdiction, because I am an appropriate judge under the Extradition

Act 2003 and I have to consider statutes passed by Parliament.


38. I have read the RP’s proof of evidence dated 27th June 2019 in which

he states that during the course of the domestic proceedings he was

diagnosed as being autistic. He suffers from type z diabetes and high

blood pressure. His eyesight deteriorated whilst in prison and he lost a

significant amount of weight.

39.Mr Seifert told the court that the RP had been diagnosed with Autism

Spectrum Disorder. I have read Dr Forrester’s report dated 24th June

2019. This has not been tested and is of limited weight. I have not

heard from the RP about his personal circumstances because he did not

give evidence. Dr Forrester diagnosed the RP as having Autism

Spectrum Disorder and, at the time the report was prepared, was

suffering from a depressive illness. It also stated that if extradited to

France he is likely to continue to require clinical support, investigation

and treatment as he did when he was in Wandsworth prison. He was

not suicidal whilst in Wandsworth prison. He presented at the time of

the report as having an elevated but low risk of suicide.

40.There has been no delay in this case. There has been a long

investigation by the French authorities. The investigation started on 7th


April 2016. An introductory indictment was issued on 8th December

2016 and there were sufficient charges to place the RP under

investigation during zot6 and confirmed in February 2017. A EAW was

issued because he refused to appear by way of summons before the

French authorities.


41. The RP argued that Mr Gaudaud, who issued the warrant, has no

evidence to support the allegations, they were figments of his

imagination and therefore fundamentally flawed. The warrant is illegal

under law because clause 38 of the Magna Carta states that no one can

be arrested without evidence. Mr Gaudaud committed perjury when he

recorded in Ms Thyer’s warrant that she had received 11,000,000

Euros when in fact, Supperstone J found the amount to be 11,000

Euros. Mr Gaudaud has copied the offences alleged against the RP into

the warrant issued for Ms Thyer and their roles were different. He had

also been convicted in the common law for perjury. The RP also argued

that the case of Metric Martyrs has to be followed by this court which

held that habeas corpus and Magna Carta can “trump” the EA 2oo3.

42. In response Mr Seifert referred me to his skeleton argument in which

he had set out the offences and the equivalent offences in the UK and

the judgment of Supperstone J, who considered whether the warrant

issued against Ms Thyer was valid. He submitted it was exactly the

same warrant as that faced by the RP. He also submitted that Mr

Gaudaud had been convicted by a common law court in the UK which

had no jurisdiction in either the UK or Europe. Mr Gaudaud, as the

Vice President at the High Instance Court in Paris, is a judicial

authority and can issue this warrant. This was not considered in the

CJEU cases of OG(C-508/18) and PI(C-82/19PPU). Similarly, there is

no merit in the argument advanced about the Magna Carta because the

Council Framework Decision 2002 has authority in law and the UK has

to consider the EA and the Framework Decision 2002. The EA is

considered by this court, the High Court and the Supreme Court.


43. I am satisfied this court has jurisdiction to deal with the warrant. This

court has to consider the statute before it which is the EA 2003 and the

Council Framework Decision 2002. There is no evidence before me that

Mr Gaudaud has issued the warrant because of any malfeasance on his

part. The conviction by the common law court is not relevant as it is a

court not known to this one. The CJEU cases do not relate to France

and I am satisfied so I am sure that Mr Gaudaud is an appropriate

issuing judicial authority, as submitted by Mr Seifert.

44.I am also satisfied so I am sure the warrant complies with section 2(4)

of the Act. This is because, as set out above, it sets out the particulars of

the RP’s identity; particulars of the warrant on which the EAW is

based; particulars of the circumstances in which the RP is alleged to

have committed the offences, including the alleged conduct; the time

and place where the offences were allegedly committed, the relevant

provision of law in the category 1 territory and the particulars of the

circumstances for each offence.

45. Under section 10 of the Act I must decide whether the offences are

extradition offences and this is informed by section 64 of the Act.

46.I am satisfied from reading the warrant and Mr Seifert’s submissions

that the warrant reveals dual criminality as follows;

(1) Offence 1 – fraud by false representation contrary to section 2 of the

Fraud Act 2003. See above at paragraph 15(1) for details about the

offence. The conduct occurs in France; none of it occurs in the UK; a

certificate issued by the appropriate authority shows it falls within

the Framework Decision as “swindle” and carries a maximum

sentence of 10 years imprisonment (section 64(5);

(2) Offence 2 – illegal practice of a pharmacist is an offence contrary to

38(4) of the Pharmacy Order 2010. Please see above at paragraph

15(2) for details of the offence. The conduct occurs in France, it

would constituent an offence in the UK and the maximum penalty is

2 years imprisonment (section 64(5);

(3) Offence 3 – marketing or distribution of an unauthorised medicine.

See above at paragraph 15(3) for details of the offence. This conduct

occurs in France, would be an offence in the UK contrary to


Regulation 46(1) of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and is

punishable with imprisonment of a maximum 7 years (section


(4) Offence 4 – advertising an unauthorised medicine. See above at

paragraph 15(4) for details of the offence. This conduct occurs in

France, would be an offence in the UK contrary to Regulation 46(1)

of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and is punishable to a

maximum sentence of imprisonment of 7 years (section 64(3);

(5) Offence 5 – deception or fraud on the nature and substantial

qualities of the goods. See above at paragraph 15(5) for details of the

offence. This conduct occurs in France, and would constitute an

offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. The maximum

penalty of imprisonment is 10 years (section 64(3)).

(6) Offence 6 – possession, in an organised gang, of medical product

used for human use without any legal supporting. See above at

paragraph 15(6) for details of the offence. The conduct occurs in

France. This would be an offence in the UK contrary to Regulation

46 (3) of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 which prohibits

possession of items with the intention of selling them. The

maximum term of imprisonment for the offence is 10 years (section


(7) Offence 7 – this concerns the concealed employment by

dissimulation of activity in an organised gang. Please see paragraph

15(7) for details of the offence. This conduct would amount to

cheating the public revenue, contrary to common law and I was

referred to the case of Steed [2011] EWHA Crim 75 where it was

stated at paragraph 11, that, “cheating consists of any form of

fraudulent conduct, whether by making positive false

representations…..or by concealing or omitting to disclose liability

or income taith the result that money is diverted from the Revenue

and the Revenue is deprived of money to which it is entitled”. The

French authorities were deprived of tax by operating his business in

this way. The conduct occurs in France and is punishable with

imprisonment of a maximum 10 years (section 64(3)).


(8) Offence B – operating a pharmaceutical establishment, a laboratory

without authorisation. See above at paragraph 15 (8) for details of

the offence. The conduct would amount to a breach of Regulation 3

of the Pharmacy Order 2010, which defines a person who practices

as a pharmacist: “For the purposes of this Order, a person practices

as a pharmacist or a pharmacy technician if, whilst acting in the

capacity of or purporting to be a pharmacist or a pharmacy

technician, that person undertakes any work or gives any advice

in relation to the preparation, assembly, dispensing, sole, supply

or use of medicines, the science of medicines, the practice of

pharmacy or the provision of healthcare”. This offence is akin to an

offence under section SB(+) of the same order as in offence 2. The

conduct occurs in France and is punishable with a maximum term

of imprisonment of 2 years (section 64(3)).

(9) Offence 9 – biomedical research without consent. This is akin to an

offence contrary to Regulation 49 of the Medicines for Human Use

(Clinical Trials) Regulations 2oo4which states it is an offence to

contravene Regulation re because in this case no ethics committee

has given a favourable opinion in relation to a clinical trial, contrary

to section 12(1)(a) and 12(3)(a) of the Regulations. The laboratory

used in Ms Thyer’s house was being used to carry out the

experiments. The conduct occurs in France and the maximum

sentence is 9 years (section 64(3)).

47.The warrant is valid; it complies with section 2 of the Act and there is

dual criminality as required by section 10 of the Act as informed by

section 63 of the Act.

48. This challenge fails.


49. Under section 11 of the Act I have to decide if the RP’s extradition is

barred by reason of those matters contained in the Act. In this case the

RP raises double jeopardy under section 12. He does not raise bars

under section 12A, absence of prosecution decision, section 13,

extraneous considerations, section 14, passage of time, section 15, the


person’s age, section 17, speciality, sections 19 and 19A and 19B, earlier

extradition from territory and section 19B, forum.

50. Section 20, retrial rights does not apply as this is an accusation


51. I will deal with the bar under section 12, double jeopardy as this has

been raised and I will satisfy myself whether there is a bar under 21A,

absence of prosecution decision, because I have received information

about this from the IJA.


52. This provides: “A person’s extradition to a category 1 territory is

barred by reason of the rule against double jeopardy if (and only if) it

appears that he would be entitled to be discharged under any rule of

law relating to pervious acquittal or convict on the assumption –

(a) That the conduct constituting the extradition offence constituted an

offence in the part of the United Kingdom where the judge

exercises jurisdiction;

b) That the person were charged with the extradition offence in that

part of the United Kingdom.

53. In his arguments before me, the RP submitted that he had already been

sentenced to 15 months imprisonment in the UK for the same offences

and the warrant is illegal under the Lisbon Treaty and ECTHR and the

French authorities have issued the warrant to get around the law.

54. In response, Mr Seifert referred to the cases of Fofana v Deputy

Prosecutor Thubin Tribunal de Grande instance de Meaux, France

[2006] EWHC 744 (Admin) and Dar v Staatsanwaltschat Frankfurt

am Mein [2016] EWHC 2405 (Admin). In Fofana the Divisional Court

looked at double jeopardy irl the context of extradition. I must assess

whether the RP has been previously acquitted or convicted of the same

offence, or an offence arising out of the same or substantially the same

facts as those set out in the warrant. He submitted that the offences the

RP faced at Southwark Crown Court were different to those he faces in

the warrant. Of the 7 offences faced at Southwark, the dates they were

said to have been committed were different to those in the EAW. with


only one, count 7, money laundering having occurred between 1st

January 2012 and 1st September 2015. This overlaps the time line of

those offences in the warrant. However, the RP does not face any

allegation of money laundering in the EAW.

55. I am satisfied so I am sure that there is no overlap in the conduct

alleged in the warrant and those the RP faced at Southwark. In relation

to the one alleged offence which is said to have been committed in the

same timeline, the RP is not requested for an offence of money

laundering. He has been convicted of a completely separate course of

conduct in the UK and this bar to extradition fails.



56. There are two stages to the application of this section. The first stage is

that I must have reasonable grounds for believing that (1) the

competent authorities in the category 1 territory have not made a

decision to charge or have not made a decision to try (or have made

neither of those decisions), and (2) the person’s absence from the

category r territory is not the sole reason for that failure.

57. If the RP is able to satisfy the judge as to both (1) and (2) above, I must

then move on to consider the second stage which states, at section

12A(1)(b), that the RP’s extradition will be barred unless the

prosecution is able to prove to the criminal standard that, (i) the

competent authorities in the category 1 territory have made a decision

to charge and a decision to try, or (ii) in a case where one of those

decisions has not been made (or neither of them has been made), the

person’s absence from the category r territory is the sole reason for that


58. This challenge has not been raised but, as already stated, I will deal

with it because the IJA have addressed this in their further

information. The recent decision of Knowles, J in Jacek Litwinczuk v

Poland sub nom Jqcek Litwinczuk v Circuit Court in Szczecin, Poland

[2019] 2019 EWHC 2745 (Admin) states that the further information

provided in that case was to be regarded as incorporated in the EAW; it


was not separate and distinct but was part and parcel of the same

document. Therefore, I have considered the further information

provided together with the warrant and, it seems to me, that the further

information clearly confirms that the investigation is at an advanced

stage. In 2016 there was sufficient information to place the RP under

investigation and to pursue an introductory indictment on 8th

December 2016. Nevertheless, the statement in the further information

that it is “solely his (the RP’s) refusal to appear by summons before the

French authorities that account for the fact that he is not currently

place under investigation” requires me to make the finding that the

decision to charge and the decision to try have not yet been made. This

is because the further information unequivocally states the decision has

not been made solely because of his absence in the jurisdiction. My

decision is supported by a similar finding made in the Divisional Court

in respect of the co-accused’s case, Ms Thyer, in respect of the same


59. The IJA have proved this to the criminal standard and accordingly, this

challenge fails.


60. I have to consider whether extradition would be compatible with a RP’s

rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The RP has

not raised any issues that extradition will breach his Convention rights

but I will deal with Article 3, prison conditions, because I have received

information from IJA and I will deal with Article 8 under section 21A.


61. The information I have received from the IJA (see above at paragraphs

34-35) confirms that, if extradited, the RP will be detained at either

Fleury-Merogis or Fresnes, men’s district. I am satisfied that these

prisons have conditions which are Article 3 compliant.



62. Under this section I must decide both of the following questions,

whether the extradition of the RP would be compatible with the

Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998;

whether the extradition would be disproportionate. In deciding

whether extradition would be disproportional, I must take into account

the specified matters relating to proportionality, so far as I think it

appropriate to do so and they are:

(a) The seriousness of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition


(b) The likely penalty that would be imposed if D was found guilty of

the extradition offence;

(c) The possibility of the relevant foreign authorities taking measures

that would be less coercive than the extradition of D.

20 Article 8 was considered in the cases of Norris v Government of the

United States of America (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 and further considered

in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the ltalian Republic, Genoa [2012]

UKSC 25. The approach required of a District Judge was considered in

Polish Judiical Authorities v Celinski and. Others [2015] EWHC 1274


Factors in favour of extradition

63. The strong public interest in upholding extradition treaties is very high

and that the UK should not be regarded as a haven for those seeking to

avoid criminal proceedings in other countries.

64. The decisions of the Judicial Authority of a Member State making a

request should be accorded the proper degree of mutual confidence and


65. The independence of prosecutorial decisions must be borne in mind

when considering issues under Article B.

66.The allegations are serious involving the selling of medical products

that were unauthorised. There was a system for the manufacturing and

distribution of the products which were sold over the internet.

67. Any sentence is likely to be substantial.

68.There has been no delay in this case (see paragraph 40 above).


69.The RP is not of good character in the UK.

Factors against extradition

70. The RP has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

71. The RP suffers from depression, type 2 diabetes and high blood


72. His eyesight deteriorated whilst in prison and he lost a significant

amount of weight.


73. The RP’s Article 8 rights are engaged. I have undertaken the balancing

exercise and, on the evidence before me, there is nothing to suggest

that the impact of extradition would not be proportionate to the RP’s

Convention rights, particularly in light of the very serious offences for

which he is sought.


74. The alleged offences are serious, manufacturing, marketing and selling

products which are sold as cures for illnesses and conditions without

the appropriate authorisation.

75. If the RP is found guilty I have no doubt a sentence of imprisonment is

likely to be imposed, given the time frame of the offences and the

sophisticated nature of the enterprise.

76. No evidence has been adduced as to the less coercive measures the

French authorities could have taken but it is clear from the further

information that the RP was invited to go to France to see the

authorities and failed to do so after initially agreeing to attend,

resulting in the EAW being issued.


77.The RP submitted the warrant has been issued on an improperly

motivated basis in that it has been brought by the MHRA which had

directors of GlaxcoKline on its board and exists to protect the profits

for chemotherapy and other chemical drugs; the former being $200


million. He also submitted this court did not have jurisdiction to hear

the case as it was not properly constituted.

78. In response Mr Seifert referred to his skeleton argument and further

submitted the warrant has been issued by u judicial authority in France,

certified by the NCA and an appropriate judge under the EA has

considered it.

79. Abuse of process arguments can only be used if all other bars to

extradition have failed. It is a residual, implied jurisdiction.

80. Procedural steps have to be followed when an allegation of abuse of

process has been alleged; first to identity with specificity what I alleged

to constitute the abuse, second to satisfy the court hat the matter

complained of is capable of amounting to an abuse and third to satisfy

the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that such

conduct has occurred (Hayes v Malta [2009] EWHC 880 (Admin).

81. The RP has to satisfy me that not only is the issue capable of being

raised but that there are reasonable grounds for believing the abuse has

occurred. This requires cogent evidence.

82. I do not find that that any cogent evident has been adduced to support

this challenge. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that any

abusive conduct has occurred. The warrant has been issued by a

competent judicial authority; two different investigations have been

conducted; there is no evidence to suggest the warrant has been issued

on an improperly motivated basis; the conduct in France occurred

between 1st June 2015 and 20th February 2017 and none of the conduct

occurred in the UK.

83. For these reasons I also reject this challenge.


84. I have found the warrant is valid under seciotn 2 of the Act and that the

conduct amounts to extradition offences under section 10 of the Act as

informed by section 64.

85. There are no bars to extradition.

86. Extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights and would

not be disproportionate.


87. There is no abuse of process.

88. Therefore, I order the RP’s extradition to France pursuant to section

21A (5) of the Act.

District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Tempia.

Appropriate Judge.

7th November 2019.