Extradition, Double Jeopardy, and Fair Trial Rights: Key Issues in Awat Wahab Hamasalih v Italian Judicial Authority

Citation: [2024] EWHC 595 (Admin)
Judgment on


The case of Awat Wahab Hamasalih v Italian Judicial Authority [2024] EWHC 595 (Admin) involves complex issues surrounding extradition proceedings, double jeopardy, fair trial rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and procedural matters concerning amendments and new evidence. This case analysis examines the application of legal principles by the High Court in considering the applicant’s permission to appeal against an extradition order and related submissions.

Key Facts

Awat Wahab Hamasalih (the Applicant) sought to appeal against an extradition order related to convictions in Italy for directing a terrorist organization, serving a sentence of 9 years. Previously convicted in the UK for terrorist offences, the Applicant argued double jeopardy, contending that his Italian conviction was based on the same facts as his UK conviction. This argument was rejected by District Judge (DJ) Zani. Additional grounds were sought to be added, including claims of an unfair trial in Italy, implicating Article 6 of the ECHR and procedural issues from both Italian and UK court proceedings.

The application for permission to appeal faced a response centered on questions regarding the timing of the presentation of evidence, the merit of the claim that Italian trial procedure was unfair, and whether the new submissions met the conditions for admissibility.

The judgment draws upon several key legal principles:

  1. Double Jeopardy: The principle that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime, covered by section 12 of the Extradition Act 2003. The Applicant initially pursued this line of argument, which was ultimately dismissed.

  2. ECHR Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial): The Applicant contended that the Italian court procedures and his inability to participate adequately in his appeal hearing violated his right to a fair trial.

  3. Admissibility of New Evidence: A significant point of contention was whether evidence not presented at the extradition hearing could be introduced at this stage, guided by section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 and relevant case law such as Hoholm v Norway [2009] EWHC 1513.

  4. Abuse of Process: This concept relates to the integrity of the court’s process, here questioning if the Applicant’s case was unfairly handled during Italian proceedings.

  5. Adjournment and Amendment of Grounds: The court considered whether procedural fairness and justice required an adjournment and amendment to the grounds of appeal, evaluating whether the new claims were significantly different and meritorious enough to warrant this unusual step.


The court granted permission to amend the notice of appeal to include the contention of an unfair trial, noting the difference in facts from previous related cases involving Rahim and Hamad. It recognized the importance of adequately exploring the assertion that the Applicant’s fundamental rights, under Articles 5 and 6 of the ECHR, may have been violated.

The decision outlined several critical directives:

  • Appointment of new representation and extension of the representation order to cover cost translations.
  • Deadlines for filing and serving translated Italian court documents, additional evidence, and written submissions.
  • Recognition of imperative expeditious handling of extradition proceedings.

The court deferred a detailed assessment of the renewed application and postponed oral renewal to a later date with a time estimate of 2 hours, considering the complexities involved.


The Hon. Mr Justice Bourne’s analysis in Awat Wahab Hamasalih v Italian Judicial Authority emphasizes the careful balance between expediency and the protection of fundamental rights in extradition cases. The judgment acknowledges the unique aspects of the Applicant’s case compared to similar cases and permits an amendment to the original ground of appeal ensuring that essential rights considerations are thoroughly reviewed before final decisions on extradition are made. This case serves as a precedent in demonstrating the High Court’s approach to late-stage amendments and evidentiary submissions within the extradition legal framework.

Related Summaries