Igor Gisca v Prosecutor General of Trieste, Italy
[2023] EWHC 241 (Admin)
Awat Wahab Hamasalih v Italian Judicial Authority
15 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 595 (Admin)
High Court
A man wants to stop being extradited to Italy after being convicted of terrorism there. He first claimed it was unfair (double jeopardy), but then claimed his Italian trial was unfair and violated his rights. A judge initially rejected this, but because new evidence showed potential problems with his lawyers in Italy, the judge decided to hear his case again.
Key Facts
- •Applicant sought permission to appeal an extradition order to Italy based on a conviction for directing a terrorist organization.
- •Applicant had previously been convicted in the UK for terrorist offences.
- •The initial extradition hearing rejected the Applicant's 'double jeopardy' argument.
- •The Applicant's initial appeal was refused, and he later sought to amend the grounds of appeal to include abuse of process and unfair trial claims based on issues with legal representation and interpretation in Italy.
- •The Applicant's legal representation changed during the appeal process due to funding issues.
- •New evidence from Italian court files was obtained late in the process.
- •The Applicant argued that his inability to attend the trial and appeal in Italy due to UK custody violated his Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 5 (liberty) ECHR rights.
Legal Principles
Double Jeopardy
Section 12 of the Extradition Act 2003
Abuse of Process
Extradition Act 2003, Section 27(4)
Fair Trial Rights
ECHR Article 6
Right to Liberty
ECHR Article 5
Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
Section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 and Hoholm v Norway [2009] EWHC 1513
Outcomes
Permission to amend the grounds of appeal was granted.
The court found that the proposed amended ground of appeal, based on Articles 5 and 6 ECHR, was not obviously without merit and warranted consideration in light of newly obtained evidence. While similar arguments were rejected in related cases, the Applicant's specific circumstances and the late acquisition of evidence justified a further hearing.
The application for an adjournment was refused.
The court deemed sufficient information was available to understand the application without further delay, balancing this against the need for expedition in extradition cases.
Directions given for further submissions and evidence within specific timeframes.
To ensure a fair assessment of the amended appeal ground with the new evidence obtained.
Oral renewal hearing scheduled.
To address the merits of the amended appeal ground and remaining abuse of process argument, deemed necessary due to the complexity of facts.
Similar Cases
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)
Zdravko Tihomiro Stefanov v District Attorney of the Court of Venice, Italy
[2023] EWHC 463 (Admin)
Octavian Radu v The Vaslui Court of Law, Romania
[2024] EWHC 603 (Admin)
Nicolae Prejoinau v Deputy General Prosecutor of Messina (Italy)
[2023] EWHC 2378 (Admin)