Franco Paderi v Prosecutor General Court of Appeal Caguari (Italy)
[2024] EWHC 1003 (Admin)
Zdravko Tihomiro Stefanov v District Attorney of the Court of Venice, Italy
3 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 463 (Admin)
High Court
A man was convicted in Italy for crimes in 2007 but wasn't caught until recently. He tried to avoid extradition to Italy to serve his sentence, arguing it was unfair because of the delay and his family. The judge ruled that the seriousness of his crimes means he must still go back to Italy.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Stefanov appeals extradition to Italy for 2007 trafficking offences.
- •He was convicted in absentia in Italy.
- •Extradition was resisted on grounds of section 2, 14, and 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 ECHR.
- •Significant delay between offence (2007) and extradition request (2019).
- •Appellant's son diagnosed with Scheuermann's disease.
- •Appellant argues lack of right to retrial under section 20 EA 2003.
Legal Principles
Extradition is barred by passage of time if unjust or oppressive.
Extradition Act 2003, section 14
Extradition must not be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.
Extradition Act 2003, section 21; Article 8 ECHR
If convicted in absentia without deliberate absence, court must determine retrial entitlement.
Extradition Act 2003, section 20
Passage of time should be considered under both section 14 and the Article 8 balancing exercise under section 21.
Konecny v Czech Republic [2019] UKSC 8
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's balancing exercise under section 21 was not wrong, even considering the significant delay and new evidence. The seriousness of the offences outweighs the Article 8 concerns.
Ground 2 (section 20) rejected.
The respondent discharged the burden of proving the appellant would be entitled to a retrial under Italian law, despite concerns about the clarity of information provided by the Italian authorities.
Ground 1 (section 14) rejected.
The correct approach to passage of time was adopted. While delay was significant, the court found it should be addressed under section 21 rather than section 14.
Similar Cases
Igor Gisca v Prosecutor General of Trieste, Italy
[2023] EWHC 241 (Admin)
Awat Wahab Hamasalih v Italian Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 595 (Admin)
Nicolae Prejoinau v Deputy General Prosecutor of Messina (Italy)
[2023] EWHC 2378 (Admin)
Eduard Otto Goldstein v The Court of Caltanissetta Italy
[2024] EWHC 1459 (Admin)