Bertino v Public Prosecutor's Office, Italy
[2024] UKSC 9
Samuel Fortes Paiva v Tribunal Da Comarca De Setubal Portugal
29 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 980 (Admin)
High Court
A man was ordered to be sent back to Portugal for a crime he was convicted of while not in court. He said he didn't know about the trial. The court decided the evidence showing he deliberately skipped court was too weak and let him go.
Key Facts
- •Samuel Fortes Paiva (appellant) appeals extradition to Portugal following a conviction in absentia for qualified theft in 2015.
- •The extradition order was based on the appellant's alleged deliberate absence from his trial.
- •The appellant claims he was unaware of the proceedings and did not deliberately abscond.
- •The key issue is whether the district judge correctly concluded the appellant deliberately absented himself from his trial under section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
- •The arrest warrant relied upon by the Portuguese authorities contained limited details regarding notification of the trial date and subsequent proceedings.
- •The appellant provided evidence suggesting he believed the matter was concluded after a hearing he attended in Portugal.
- •The district judge found the appellant's evidence vague and unpersuasive in comparison to the arrest warrant's assertions.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of 'deliberately absented himself from his trial' under section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.
Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin) and Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Italy [2024] UKSC 9
The burden of proof rests on the requesting state to demonstrate to the criminal standard that the requested person unequivocally waived their right to be present at trial.
Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Italy [2024] UKSC 9
The meaning of 'trial which resulted in the decision' as per Article 4(1)(a)(i) of the amended Framework Decision 2009.
Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin) and Foster Taylor v Italy [2019] EWHC 2938 (Admin)
Application of the principle of mutual trust and confidence in extradition proceedings.
Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania [2016] EWHC 353 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Insufficient evidence to demonstrate the appellant deliberately absented himself from his trial to the criminal standard. The arrest warrant was deemed equivocal and ambiguous regarding notification of the relevant trial hearing. The district judge's reliance on the warrant's assertions without further evidence was deemed erroneous.
Appellant's discharge ordered.
In accordance with section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, as there was no evidence of a right to retrial.
Order for extradition quashed.
Based on the insufficient evidence and erroneous finding of the district judge.
Similar Cases
District Court in Krakow, Poland v Kamil Pultorak
[2023] EWHC 2777 (Admin)
Georgeta Ghinea v Gaesti Law Court, Romania
[2024] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
Alin-Ionut Stafi v Judecatoria Roman, Romania
[2023] EWHC 429 (Admin)
Alberto Queba Braganca Cassama v Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa Norte, Portugal
[2024] EWHC 2811 (Admin)