Zdravko Tihomiro Stefanov v District Attorney of the Court of Venice, Italy
[2023] EWHC 463 (Admin)
Franco Paderi v Prosecutor General Court of Appeal Caguari (Italy)
2 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1003 (Admin)
High Court
A man is fighting extradition to Italy for crimes he committed over 30 years ago. A judge decided he should go back to Italy because the crimes were serious, even though there were big delays. The appeal court agreed, saying the delays didn't outweigh the need to return him to serve his sentence.
Key Facts
- •Franco Paderi appeals against his extradition to Italy for drug trafficking and firearms offences committed over 30 years ago.
- •He fled to the UK 17.5 years ago after his sentence was reduced to 9 years.
- •Paderi argues extradition is disproportionate, violating his Article 8 right to private and family life.
- •The judge found extradition compatible with Article 8, considering the serious nature of the offences and Paderi's fugitive status.
- •Significant delays occurred: ~10 years between arrest and trial, and ~16 years between final sentence and arrest in the UK.
- •Paderi has lived and worked openly in the UK, building a relationship with his partner.
- •The delays were partly attributed to legal challenges by Paderi and the difficulty in locating him after he fled to the UK.
Legal Principles
Extradition is incompatible with Article 8 ECHR if it amounts to a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private and family life.
Section 21 of the 2003 Act, Norris v United States [2010] UKSC 9, R (HH) v Westminster City Magistrates’ Court [2012] UKSC 25, Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)
Passage of time is a relevant consideration in the Article 8 balance, impacting both private/family life and the weight of the public interest in extradition.
Norris v United States [2010] UKSC 9, R (HH) v Westminster City Magistrates’ Court [2012] UKSC 25, Konecny v District Court in Brno-Venkov [2019] UKSC 8
The appellate court's role is to determine if the judge's decision was wrong, not to substitute its own evaluative assessment.
Celinski at [19]-[24]
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed. The judge's order for extradition was upheld.
The judge correctly balanced the competing factors, considering the serious nature of the offences, Paderi's fugitive status, and the significant delays. While acknowledging the delays and their impact on Paderi's private and family life, the judge found that the high public interest in extradition was not outweighed.