Savvas v Government Of Italy

In Convention extradition proceedings, identification need not be proved by any prescribed category of evidence. The court may rely on the totality of reliable material, including authenticated material in a conjoined case. Section 9(2) of the Extradition Act 1989 concerns procedural powers and does not impose strict adherence to the rules of evidence applicable in a summary trial.

For dual criminality, the relevant inquiry is whether the conduct alleged in the foreign state would constitute an offence in the United Kingdom punishable by at least 12 months’ imprisonment and is punishable under the foreign law. The offence need not be described in identical terms in the two jurisdictions.

The claimant faced an extradition request from Italy concerning four conspiracy charges involving the importation, exportation and possession of cannabis. A District Judge at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court committed him on bail under the Extradition Act 1989.

The claimant sought habeas corpus on three surviving grounds: whether his identity had been proved to the criminal standard; whether the evidence supported the alleged conspiracy to import cannabis into Italy; and whether the third charge satisfied dual criminality.

1. Identification. The application for habeas corpus was refused. The usual forms of identification evidence, such as photographs, fingerprints, physical descriptions or dock identification, are examples rather than legal requirements. The District Judge was entitled to rely on the unusual name, matching date of birth and residence in the same London Borough and to conclude that identification was proved to the criminal standard.
2. Use of material from a conjoined file. The District Judge was entitled to use the authenticated passport information contained in the Guarneri papers. The three extradition committals were properly heard together, concerned the same alleged conspiracies and involved common defendants. The material was therefore before the court; the judge had not taken judicial notice of another court file. The approach in Mullen v Hackney LBC [1997] 1 WLR 1103 and R (Kingsnorth and Denny) v DPP [2003] EWHC 768 (Admin) did not govern this situation.
3. Evidence and section 9(2). Section 9(2) of the Extradition Act 1989 was concerned with procedural powers and orders, not strict compliance with the rules of criminal evidence applicable to a summary trial. Properly authenticated material from a Convention state could be considered without calling a witness in circumstances of this kind.
4. Conspiracy and charge 1. There was sufficient information to support the alleged importation and exportation sub-conspiracies as parts of one overarching enterprise. For conspiracy, the relevant conduct is the agreement, rather than the overt acts of each alleged conspirator.
5. Dual criminality and charge 3. Section 2(1)(a) required attention to the conduct constituting the alleged offence, however that conduct was described in Italian law. The question was whether the conduct was punishable under Italian law by at least 12 months’ imprisonment and would constitute a similarly punishable offence in the United Kingdom. The absence of the exact expression possession with intent to supply from Article 73 did not prevent a match, since the conduct was capable of corresponding to selling, supplying, giving, retailing or trading drugs.

Mr Justice Moses agreed.

The judgment records that a District Judge at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court committed the claimant on bail on 3 September 2003 under section 9(8)(a) of the Extradition Act 1989. The Divisional Court then refused the claimant’s application for habeas corpus.