Franco Paderi v Prosecutor General Court of Appeal Caguari (Italy)

In an extradition appeal under article 8 of the Convention, proportionality requires a fact-sensitive balance between the very high public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and the interference with private and family life. Passage of time is relevant, both because private and family life may develop and because the public interest may be affected. The court must consider the whole period, including delay before trial and delay after sentence, while assessing the reasons for each period. A requested person’s fugitive status may reduce the significance of delay after sentence and make private and family life developed during that period more vulnerable. An appellate court must not substitute its own evaluation for that of the extradition judge. It may intervene only where the judge’s conclusion was wrong in the statutory sense.

The appellant, aged 70, appealed against an order for his extradition to Italy to serve the uncompleted balance of a sentence for serious drug-trafficking and firearms offences committed in 1987 and 1988. The sentence became final in 2006, after trial and appeals, and he left Italy 12 days later. He lived openly in the United Kingdom, formed a long-term relationship, and was arrested in 2022 after applying for an Italian passport.

The District Judge accepted that extradition would interfere with article 8 rights but held that the interference was proportionate. The appellant argued that the approximately 36-year period since the offences, including unexplained delay, outweighed the public interest in extradition. The central issues were the relevance of the passage of time, the effect of fugitive status, and the scope of appellate review.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order for extradition was upheld. The District Judge had applied the correct article 8 principles and had not reached a conclusion that was shown to be wrong.
2. Extradition engages an evaluative proportionality assessment. The court must identify and balance the factors for and against extradition. The public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and avoiding the United Kingdom becoming a refuge for fugitives is very high. Its weight varies with the nature and seriousness of the offending. Mutual confidence in the requesting state’s judicial authority and the limited knowledge available to the extradition judge are also relevant.
3. Passage of time can affect the article 8 balance in more than one way. It may allow private and family life to develop and may reduce the weight of the public interest. The court may consider both the period from the offences to the conclusion of proceedings and the period from sentence to the extradition request or arrest. The periods can be analysed separately without losing sight of the total delay.
4. On the facts, the first period had limited significance. The private and family life relied on was not generated then, the offences were serious, and the judge was entitled to accept that legal challenges contributed to the delay. The post-2006 delay was concerning and was properly taken into account, but the appellant’s flight to avoid serving his sentence, together with steps taken to trace him, reduced its impact. The private and family life developed in the United Kingdom therefore rested on a fragile foundation.
5. The appellate court must not substitute its own evaluative assessment. The possibility that another judge might have struck the balance differently does not establish that the decision was wrong under section 27(3) of the 2003 Act.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed and the order was upheld.
• District Judge Griffiths: Held that extradition was compatible with article 8 of the Convention and ordered extradition.