Rahim & Anor v Assize Court of Bolzano (Italy)

In a Part 1 extradition case, inaccuracies in a European Arrest Warrant justify discharge only where they meet the high threshold of affecting the extradition decision. The warrant must be read fairly with the issuing court’s judgment and other supplied information.

Article 6 fairness challenges require a flagrant denial of justice. Even if a lower common-law threshold applied, an appellate hearing is assessed in context, including the limited function of the appeal, the representation available, the interpretation provided and the defendants’ own conduct. Permission to appeal requires an arguable case on the evidence as a whole.

The applicants had been convicted in Italy of international terrorist association and were sought for extradition under European Arrest Warrants. A District Judge ordered extradition, and permission to appeal was refused on the papers. The applicants renewed a challenge under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, alleging material inaccuracies in the warrants.

They also sought permission to add a ground alleging that a later Italian appellate hearing was fundamentally unfair because of inadequate interpretation, legal representation and restrictions on their ability to address the court. The central issues were whether either ground was arguable.

Permission refused. Neither the renewed section 2 ground nor the proposed fairness ground was arguable.

1. Validity of the warrants. The warrants were to be read fairly alongside the Italian Assize Court’s judgment. That judgment contained clear findings that both applicants were involved in the secret as well as the public side of the organisation and were in contact with the Italian cell. Any remaining inaccuracies did not meet the high threshold of affecting the decision whether to extradite. The approach in Zakrzewski v District Court in Torun, Poland [2013] UKSC 2 was applied.
2. Fairness and Article 6. The established threshold in Part 1 extradition cases is a flagrant denial of justice, as stated in Lis v Poland [2018] EWHC 2848 (Admin). Even assuming that a lower threshold based on common-law fairness and due process applied, the hearing was not arguably unfair.
3. The Italian hearing was appellate. The applicants could have sought reopening of the evidentiary phase under Article 603 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, but their lawyers had not done so. The legal representatives advanced recognisable grounds of appeal, and there was insufficient evidence to establish inadequate representation.
4. The evidence about interpretation was incomplete and largely second-hand. The applicants’ voluntary statements were also materially weakened by their failure to focus on the appeal, their demands for more time and their denial of the proceedings’ relevance. Taken together, the circumstances disclosed no significant breach of Article 6 or common-law standards of fairness and due process.
5. The court therefore refused permission to appeal on both grounds.

1. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The applicants were committed in custody following their arrest and extradition proceedings.
2. District Judge Zani: On 6 February 2020, the challenges to the warrants were dismissed and extradition was ordered.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J refused permission on the papers on 26 June 2020. Sir Ross Cranston refused the renewed application and the application to add a further ground.