QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE DOBBS
____________________
TOAFIKE CHABABE | (CLAIMANT) | |
-v- | ||
BONN PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE | (DEFENDANT) |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MISS J NORRIS (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"'Unjust' I regard as directed primarily to the risk of prejudice to the accused in the conduct of the trial itself, 'oppressive' as directed to the hardship to the accused resulting from changes in circumstances that have occurred during the period to be taken into consideration; but there is room for overlapping, and between them they would cover all cases where to return him would not be fair. Delay in the commencement or conduct of extradition proceedings which is brought about by the accused himself by fleeing the country, concealing his whereabouts or evading arrest cannot, in my view, be relied upon as a ground for holding it to be either unjust or oppressive to return him. Any difficulties that he may encounter in the conduct of his defence in consequence of the delay due to such causes are of his own choice and making. Save in the most exceptional circumstances it would be neither unjust nor oppressive that he should be required to accept them.
As respects delay which is not brought about by the acts of the accused himself, however, the question of where responsibilities for the delay is not generally relevant. What matters is not so much the cause of such delay as its effect; or, rather, the effects of those events which would not have happened before the trial of the accused if it had taken place with ordinary promptitude."
"Mr T Chababe excape (sic) from Germany in April 15 1989 because police was searching for him."
On that evidence the Deputy Senior District Judge concluded that the appellant had fled from Germany to avoid detection and the lengthy delay in proceedings had been caused by that absconding. She gave cogent reasons for that decision. She concluded that the warrant had been issued promptly by the authorities in Germany in 1989. They had no idea where the appellant was. As to his claim that he had been to Germany several times between 1990 and 1994, she accepted that it was probable that he did. But on those visits the authorities would have had little chance of detecting him on border crossings, as the only examination of his identity would have taken place on his entry into Spain and not when he crossed between frontiers within the European Union. The Spanish Government, it was pointed out, would not have been interested in his identification for the purposes of the warrant issued in April 1989.