The High Court has ruled that Patrick Meegan cannot be surrendered to Italy under a European Arrest Warrant because no decision had been made to try him when the warrant was issued.
In a judgment delivered on 7 March 2016, Ms Justice Donnelly found that the absence of a decision to try Mr Meegan at that point prohibited surrender under section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The ruling addressed the surrender application on that statutory ground; it did not determine whether he committed the alleged offences.
Italy issued the warrant on 31 July 2013, seeking Mr Meegan’s surrender for prosecution over alleged aggravated smuggling of foreign finished tobacco and alleged false swearing by a public officer and public documents by mistake determined by someone else’s cheating. The warrant referred to tobacco imported from the United Arab Emirates and described Mr Meegan as participating as a purchaser in an import on 13 December 2011. These were allegations set out in the warrant, not findings by the High Court.
The central authority asked Italy whether a decision had been made to charge and try Mr Meegan. In October 2015, the Italian judicial authority said the prosecutor had requested committal for trial in May 2015, after the warrant was issued. A preliminary hearing was then scheduled for December 2015. The court heard that the hearing could result in dismissal or an order putting the defendant on trial.
The Minister argued that the earlier custody order, based on serious circumstantial evidence, indicated a decision to try. The judge accepted that the evidence indicated a decision to charge, but held that a decision to charge and a decision to try were separate. She found that the Italian authority’s account showed no decision to try had been made when the warrant was issued.
Section 21A presumes that a decision to charge and try has been made unless the contrary is proved. The judge found that the evidence from the Italian authority and an Italian lawyer rebutted that presumption. She said it was unnecessary to decide whether the prosecutor’s later request for committal for trial amounted to such a decision.
Mr Meegan had also objected that he would have no access to bail in Italy. After the Italian authority explained that a defendant could ask a judge to revoke or replace custody with less restrictive measures, his counsel accepted that this accorded with the expert evidence. The judge concluded there was a system of pre-trial release and no basis to find a real risk to Mr Meegan’s liberty on surrender. That objection did not alter the outcome under section 21A.