By Ruth Mercer
The High Court has refused to surrender Amienwalan David Ikekhua to Italy to serve an eight-year-and-four-month prison sentence after finding that his rights in proceedings held in his absence had not been adequately protected.
Italian authorities sought the Nigerian national under a European Arrest Warrant issued in March 2025. The sentence was created by a 2024 aggregation order combining two final judgments arising from drug-related offences committed between 2003 and 2007.
Mr Justice Sean Gillane identified a central fact: Italy had deported Ikekhua on August 1st, 2014. The enforceable appeal judgments relied upon in the warrant were made afterwards, in January 2015 and July 2023.
Italian authorities stated that Ikekhua had been represented by lawyers and relied on Italian rules under which notification to a defence lawyer can be treated as notification to the accused. They also indicated in the warrant that he had received official information about the scheduled hearings in a way which unequivocally established his awareness.
The High Court found, however, that the material supplied did not show any attempt to notify Ikekhua directly of the dates and places of those later hearings.
The judge accepted that Ikekhua had known about proceedings before his deportation and had previously instructed lawyers. But the court found no sufficient basis to assume that representation continued indefinitely, particularly nine years after his removal from Italy. One lawyer at the 2015 appeal was described as having been delegated to replace his lawyer of choice.
The court also found no evidence that Ikekhua deliberately avoided notification or otherwise made an informed decision to waive his right to attend. Information from Italy did not establish that he would have an automatic right to a fresh trial or appeal if surrendered.
The ruling therefore stops this European Arrest Warrant request. It does not overturn the Italian convictions or sentence. The High Court refused surrender under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 because it was not unequivocally established that Ikekhua knew of the relevant hearings or waived his defence rights.