The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by Giliola Sadiku and Giuliano Gherine against High Court decisions to seek further information in their European arrest warrant proceedings. The appeals concerned an information request under section 20 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003; the court did not decide whether either person should be surrendered to Italy.
The Minister for Justice and Equality sought their surrender to serve sentences of 10 years and six months’ imprisonment following convictions in absentia on drugs charges. The warrants did not include the information required by section 45 concerning those convictions. The Minister, acting as Central Authority, made repeated requests to the Italian judicial authority, but the required information had not been received by the High Court hearing date of 20 July 2015.
The High Court adjourned the surrender applications and sought the information again, including on 30 July. The two respondents appealed those section 20 decisions. They argued that the High Court should instead have refused surrender because the statutory requirements had not been met, and that further requests after repeated delays were inappropriate. The Minister argued that the High Court could seek information needed to decide whether surrender requirements were satisfied.
The Court of Appeal held that section 20 gave the High Court jurisdiction to seek information it considered necessary to determine whether a surrender order could be made. The fact that the court could refuse surrender because information was missing did not prevent it from exercising that discretion. The appeal court said the High Court had considered the unanswered requests and delay, and it would not interfere with the judge’s reasoned decision to make what she described as “one final request”.
The Court of Appeal also addressed the form of the High Court’s decisions. It said section 20 did not provide for an order directing the Minister, as Central Authority, to transmit a request. The court could ask the Central Authority for practical and administrative help with transmission without making such an order. It said an appeal against an unnecessary section 20 order could interrupt proceedings and delay the eventual decision on surrender.
The appeals were dismissed so the surrender applications could proceed to a conclusion. The judgment records no final decision on those applications.