The High Court has ordered Augustin Margel’s surrender to Italy under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, after dismissing his objection that he had not been present at the trial and appeal that led to the sentence he must serve.
In a judgment delivered on 21 November 2023, Mr Justice Kerida Naidoo said the European Arrest Warrant sought Margel’s surrender to enforce a sentence of one year and 10 months’ imprisonment. The judgment states that 10 months and 19 days remained to be served. The sentence became final on 15 July 2016.
Margel argued that section 45 barred surrender because he had not attended the trial or appeal. He said he did not know he was facing prosecution when questioned in Italy in 2011, had not instructed the lawyer appointed to represent him, and learned of the proceedings only after his arrest in 2019. He also disputed knowing that the lawyer’s address had been used for service of court notices.
The court accepted information from the Italian issuing authority that Margel had been charged on 11 September 2011, appointed a public defender and nominated her law firm as his address for notices. The judge relied on minutes signed by Margel that recorded those matters. He rejected Margel’s account that he knew nothing of the lawyer or had not provided an address for service.
The judge also found it highly unlikely that the lawyer had acted without Margel’s instructions: she represented him at trial and appeal, sought a reduced sentence and later applied for probation and house arrest. The court accepted that Margel attended a later decision granting house arrest, and found he knew he was required to serve it at a specified address.
The judge concluded that Margel had made an informed decision not to attend the trial or appeal, his defence rights had been protected, and the substance of the relevant attendance safeguards in the warrant had been met. He therefore dismissed the section 45 objection.
Margel had also cited his private and family life, saying he lived with his wife in Newry, had two children living in Romania, and had recently obtained work. Although that objection was not pursued at the hearing, the judge considered it and found the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional to prevent surrender under section 37.
The order directs surrender to the Republic of Italy. The judgment does not state that surrender had already taken place.