The High Court has refused to surrender Giuliano Gherine to Italy under a European Arrest Warrant seeking enforcement of a 13-year prison sentence. Ms Justice Donnelly ruled that the warrant was defective in essential respects and was not valid because it failed to provide required details about the offence.
The warrant, issued in May 2013, sought Gherine’s surrender to serve a sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro. The Irish court had previously refused an earlier warrant seeking his surrender for prosecution after learning that he had been tried in absentia in Italy, convicted of one offence and acquitted of several others. The second warrant related to the sentence for the offence of conviction.
In the present proceedings, the court examined whether the second warrant met section 11 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. It described the alleged offence as involving a drug-trafficking organisation in the Sibari area, but the Italian authorities did not provide a start date for the offence. In response to a request for the time period “to the greatest extent possible”, they said it extended until November 2008.
The judge found the information did not explain the period covered by the alleged offence or give details of acts by which Gherine was said to have promoted, led, organised or financed the organisation. The court also rejected the suggestion that details in the earlier warrant could fill the gaps, finding that its dates, locations and account of Gherine’s alleged role did not establish the time period for the offence in the second warrant.
The court had power under section 20 to seek more information but declined to do so. It took account of earlier unanswered requests to the Italian authorities, the history of the first surrender proceedings and the prolonged course of the two sets of proceedings. The judge said the court could have no confidence that the requested details would arrive within a reasonable time.
The court concluded that the omissions were substantial, not technical defects that could be overcome under section 45C. It refused surrender on the second warrant. The ruling did not determine the respondent’s guilt or order his release from any other proceedings.