Tuakli v Judge for Preliminary Investigations, Court of Trieste, Italy

An appeal may be reopened to consider fresh evidence only where the evidence could have made a decisive difference to the result. The reopening jurisdiction is not an opportunity for an unsuccessful party to regroup and have another attempt at the appeal. An application may properly be determined on the papers where that course is just, appropriate and proportionate. Fresh evidence concerning compassionate or family circumstances will not justify reopening where, considered individually or cumulatively with the existing factors, it cannot affect the outcome.

The appellant sought to reopen an extradition appeal after an earlier renewed application for permission to appeal had been heard remotely and dismissed. He relied on evidence that he was helping his brother, who had a serious neck condition, and a family friend who had cancer and was at high risk from Covid-19.

The court considered whether the application required an oral hearing and whether the fresh material could have altered the earlier conclusion that the Article 8 ground was not properly arguable. The application was determined on the papers.

1. Procedure. The court had power to determine an application to reopen an appeal on the papers. Having examined the contemporaneous documents and the appellant’s witness statement, it concluded that determination on the papers was just, appropriate and proportionate. The appellant had not been misled about the hearing time and was responsible for failing to provide the further information before the hearing.
2. Fresh evidence. The jurisdiction to reopen an appeal is not designed to enable an unsuccessful party in extradition proceedings to regroup and have another attempt. Fresh evidence must be capable of being decisive. The court applied the approach identified in Government of the United States v Bowen [2015] EWHC 1873 (Admin).
3. Article 8. The new evidence, whether considered separately or cumulatively with the existing factors, could not have altered the conclusion that extradition was compatible with Article 8 ECHR. The public interest in extradition remained strong, and the appellant’s assistance to his brother and family friend provided no prospect of establishing incompatibility with the Article 8 rights relied upon.
4. Disposition. There was no injustice requiring the appeal to be reopened. The application was dismissed.

The judgment concerns an application to reopen an earlier extradition appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): An earlier judgment on the Article 8 ground was given in [2020] EWHC 2699 (Admin). The present application to reopen was dismissed.