The High Court has refused to surrender Giliola Sadiku to Italy under a European arrest warrant, finding that the warrant omitted essential details about the offence for which her surrender was sought.
In a judgment delivered on 28 July 2016, Ms Justice Donnelly held that the warrant did not comply with section 11(1A)(f) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The missing information included the period when the alleged offence was committed and details of Ms Sadiku’s alleged involvement.
The warrant, issued in May 2013, sought Ms Sadiku’s surrender to serve a sentence of 10 years and six months imposed in Italy. It described an alleged drug trafficking organisation in the Sibari area and said Ms Sadiku had promoted, started, led, organised and financed it. Further information from Italian authorities said the offence continued until November 2008, but gave no starting date. It described her role as promoting, directing and organising the association, without setting out specific acts.
The Minister for Justice argued that the warrant and additional information supplied enough detail, and that information in an earlier warrant could also be considered. Ms Sadiku’s counsel objected to relying on the earlier warrant, pointing to differences in the alleged conduct, locations, drugs and description of her role. The judge found that the earlier material did not clarify the timeframe for the offence covered by the later warrant and could not fill the gaps.
The court had previously sought information about a separate issue arising from Ms Sadiku’s trial in absentia: whether she could appeal her conviction after surrender. Italian authorities indicated she would have 30 days to appeal. The renewed hearing also considered the adequacy of the offence details and the history of unanswered requests for information.
Justice Donnelly declined to make another request under section 20 of the Act. She cited the earlier unanswered request for the offence’s start date, the history of the proceedings and the delay. Although some delay resulted from how Ms Sadiku’s case was presented, the judge said most was caused by the issuing authority’s failure to respond within a reasonable time.
The judge also found that section 45C did not require surrender despite the defects. She ruled the omissions were substantial and that she could not be sure an order would cause no injustice. The court refused surrender on the second warrant, holding that it was defective in essential respects and was not a valid warrant.