The High Court has refused to surrender Aisha Ahmed, also named as Gloria Anwulika, to Italy, finding that the European arrest warrant did not meet the requirements for cases where a person was convicted in their absence.
In a judgment delivered on 8 February 2016, Ms Justice Donnelly ruled that the issuing judicial authority had not clearly confirmed that any of the statutory conditions for surrender after an absentia trial had been met. The court held that surrender was prohibited under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. It did not order surrender.
Italy sought Ms Ahmed’s surrender to serve a 20-year sentence following convictions in Naples in 2005 and 2009 for a drugs offence. The warrant alleged that she took part in an association involved in importing, selling and distributing cocaine in several Italian provinces between September 1999 and June 2000. The judgment records that the convictions followed proceedings in her absence.
The Minister for Justice argued that the information supplied by Italy showed Ms Ahmed had appointed lawyers and that notices of the proceedings were served on them. Italy said she appointed two defence lawyers at a hearing in March 2000, was released from custody later that month, and was subsequently declared a fugitive after evading a custody order. Further information said trial notices were served on her lawyers.
The judge found, however, that the information did not directly establish that Ms Ahmed knew of the scheduled trial when she gave a mandate to a lawyer to defend her at it. The Minister accepted that the relevant statutory route was the provision requiring such awareness, a mandate and representation at trial. The court said the issuing authority had not clearly designated that condition or given the required assurance. It held that the defect was not one that could be treated as immaterial, and that the statutory exception for defects without potential to cause injustice did not apply.
The court rejected Ms Ahmed’s separate arguments that delay breached her fair-trial or family-life rights, and that Italy’s declaration under Article 32 of the 2002 Framework Decision barred use of the European arrest warrant for the alleged pre-August 2002 conduct. The judge found that the delay did not establish a rights violation and that the declaration concerned requests received by Italy as an executing state.
The refusal was based on the section 45 defect. The court said it was therefore unnecessary to decide whether the earlier trial in Ms Ahmed’s absence itself violated fair-trial rights.