Seidi v Tribunal Judicial Da Comarca De Lisboa, Portugal

For the purposes of Extradition Act 2003, deliberate absence from trial may be established by the requesting state proving, to the criminal standard, that the requested person knowingly waived the right to attend. The court may consider all the circumstances, including conduct showing a manifest lack of diligence. Actual receipt in the sense of personally seeing and reading notice is not essential where the person knew that notifications would be sent to an address provided by him and failed to take reasonable steps to receive them.

On an Article 8 challenge, an appellate court will not interfere with an orthodox proportionality assessment unless later changes are capable of displacing the lower court’s conclusion. Fugitive status may reduce the weight given to delay and increase the weight of the public interest in extradition.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against the decision of a district judge sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 12 July 2019. The district judge ordered his extradition to Portugal under a conviction European Arrest Warrant concerning a tax embezzlement conviction entered in his absence.

The appeal concerned whether the appellant had deliberately absented himself from his trial for the purposes of section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether extradition would breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the effect on the appellant, his health and his family in the United Kingdom.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The district judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant had deliberately absented himself from his trial.

2. Under section 20(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, the question was ultimately whether the appellant knowingly waived his right to a trial. The requesting authority bore the burden of proof to the criminal standard. Conduct amounting to a manifest lack of diligence was relevant evidence, and the court was required to consider all the circumstances.

3. The district judge was entitled to draw common-sense inferences from the European Arrest Warrant, the further information and the oral evidence. The evidence established that the appellant had signed a Statement of Identity and Residence, had provided an address for notifications and was under an obligation to notify any change of address. Notice of the trial was deposited at that address. The judge was entitled to reject the appellant’s denial of knowledge and to treat his failure to maintain arrangements for receiving correspondence as deliberate absence.

4. It was unnecessary to establish that the appellant had personally seen and read the notice. The court could not know whether he had actually received it in that sense, but his failure to ensure that correspondence delivered to the address he had provided came to his attention constituted a manifest lack of diligence.

5. The Article 8 challenge also failed. The district judge had conducted an orthodox balancing exercise, taking account of the appellant’s family circumstances, health and the effect of extradition on innocent family members. Because the appellant was properly treated as a fugitive, delay carried little weight and factors supporting the public interest in extradition carried greater weight. Changes in detail arising after the decision, including the pandemic and worsening personal circumstances, were insufficient to displace the balance struck below.

6. It was unnecessary to determine the formal admissibility of the fresh evidence.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: on 12 July 2019, the district judge dismissed the appellant’s objections and ordered extradition to Portugal.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal was dismissed, and the extradition order was upheld.