The prisoner had been convicted in his absence in 1991 of offences in Italy. He was resident in England at the time, and many years later extradition was sought. He had not hidden his whereabouts, and the Italian State seemed not to have pursued him. He now said it would not be in the interests of justice for him to be called upon to serve the sentence, and that the trial in his absence infringed his human rights.
Held: A trial in a defendants absence is not automatically unfair, particularly if he had opportunity to be heard. In this case he had been actively represented in his absence, and in England his trial would not be set aside. Would it be unjust or oppressive to order his return? Although the delay had been substantial, and he had acquired new obligations here, it was not wrong to order his return to serve the sentence.
Judges:
Lord Justice Kennedy And Mrs Justice Hallett
Citations:
[2001] EWHC Admin 1124
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights, Extradition Act 1989 6(2) 11(3)(b)
Citing:
Cited – Colloza and Rubinat v Italy ECHR 1985
. .
Cited – Regina v John Victor Hayward, Anthony William Jones, Paul Nigel Purvis CACD 31-Jan-2001
A defendant can forego his right to attend his trial, but he still had the general right to be present, and to have legal representation at the trial. The court’s discretion to proceed in his absence should only be exercised with great care. A trial . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mariotti v Government of Italy and others Admn 2-Dec-2005
The extraditee had been convicted in his absence in Italy having fled to avoid the trial. He complained that the trial process had been unfair and the evidence against him weak.
Held: The court’s duty was not to investigate the evidential . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168014