District Court In Martin, the Slovak Republic v Zigmund

For the purposes of section 85(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, deliberately absenting oneself from a jurisdiction is not, by itself, deliberately absenting oneself from a trial. The statutory reference to a trial concerns a specific event, rather than the entire criminal process. The court must assess whether the person knew of proceedings which might lead to a trial and intended to absent himself from that trial. Knowledge of the allegation, confession, examination of the prosecution file and familiarity with criminal proceedings may support that inference. An authority applying the statutory distinction may be distinguished where the facts establish a sufficiently clear intention to avoid the anticipated trial.

The Slovak Republic sought the extradition of Zigmund under a European Arrest Warrant in respect of a burglary conviction. The District Judge accepted that he knew of the allegation, had confessed, had examined the criminal file and had deliberately left Slovakia to avoid being indicted and tried. She nevertheless discharged him under section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, considering herself bound by Government of Albania v Bleta [2005] 1 WLR 3576 and Mucelli v Government of Albania [2008] 1 WLR 237.

The issue on appeal was whether those authorities required the conclusion that Zigmund had deliberately absented himself from the legal process, but not from his trial.

1. Appeal allowed. The District Judge ought to have found that Zigmund had deliberately absented himself from his trial. Her discharge order was quashed, the case was remitted, and she was directed to proceed as required on that basis.

2. Section 85(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 refers to deliberate absence from a specific trial or anticipated trial, not merely absence from the jurisdiction or from the wider criminal process. The principles stated in Government of Albania v Bleta [2005] 1 WLR 3576 were therefore applicable.

3. The present facts were materially different from Bleta. Zigmund had been charged at the investigative stage, knew of the allegation, confessed, examined the police file and understood that the proceedings would progress to formal charging and trial. His prior familiarity with criminal proceedings supported the inference that he left Slovakia intending to avoid the trial.

4. The case was also distinguishable from Mucelli v Government of Albania [2008] 1 WLR 237, where there was no evidence that the defendant knew of the court proceedings in which he was convicted and sentenced. The absence of evidence that Zigmund knew the indictment or planned hearing date did not prevent the necessary inference on the facts found.

5. The court did not need to decide whether Bleta adopted an unduly narrow interpretation, because the facts permitted a distinction on the established statutory approach.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal under section 28 of the Extradition Act 2003, quashed the District Judge’s discharge order, remitted the case and directed her to proceed on the basis that the respondent had deliberately absented himself from his trial.
• District Judge: On 12 February 2009, discharged the respondent under section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003.