QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SWIFT DBE
| ANTHONY PARKER
- and -
THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA
Ben Brandon and Ally Wilkes (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 22 January 2013
Crown Copyright ©
The Honourable Mrs Justice Swift :
The history of the extradition proceedings
a) The effect of extradition on the appellant's mental health;
b) Possible retaliation by criminal gangs if he were to be extradited to Argentina;
c) Whether the appellant had ever been formally "accused";
d) Whether there was sufficient evidence of identification to constitute a case to answer (the 'prima facie case' issue);
e) Whether a valid warrant for the appellant's arrest had been issued in accordance with section 78 of the 2003 Act;
f) Whether, if the appellant were to be extradited, there might be a breach of his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) arising from the failure of the Argentinian authorities to provide him with sufficient protection against potential reprisals from criminals to whom he was known;
The appeal proceedings
The progress of the appeal
Dr Verdu's evidence
The Case Management Conference
The relevant law
The court may allow the appeal only if the conditions in subsection (3) or the conditions in subsection (4) are satisfied.
(4) The conditions are that—
(a) an issue is raised that was not raised at the extradition hearing or evidence is available that was not available at the extradition hearing;
(b) the issue or evidence would have resulted in the judge deciding a question before him at the extradition hearing differently;
(c) if he had decided the question in that way, he would have been required to order the person's discharge.
" In our judgment, evidence which was 'not available at the extradition hearing' means evidence which either did not exist at the time of the extradition hearing, or which was not at the disposal of the party wishing to adduce it and which he could not with reasonable diligence have obtained. If it was at the party's disposal or could have been so obtained, it was available. It may on occasions be material to consider whether or when the party knew the case he had to meet. But a party taken by surprise is able to ask for an adjournment. In addition, the court needs to decide that, if the evidence had been adduced, the result would have been different resulting in the person's discharge. This is a strict test, consonant with the parliamentary intent and that of the Framework Decision, that extradition cases should be dealt with speedily and should not generally be held up by an attempt to introduce equivocal fresh evidence which was available to a diligent party at the extradition hearing. A party seeking to persuade the court that proposed evidence was not available should normally serve a witness statement explaining why it was not available. The Appellants did not do this in the present appeal."
The parties' submissions
"Against this Mr Parker provides no specific information to meet the facts of his particular case. I do not speculate on the reasons for that. I am aware that he has been represented for most of the proceedings by solicitors and counsel who are able and very experienced in this field. I understand the difficulties faced by Mr Bisgrove, coming into this case so late in the day. I understand why he would want to obtain evidence to deal with the gaps in his case. However, as I said earlier, I gave full reasons for refusing the adjournment and note in particular that the defendant has had over a year to prepare his case.
In the absence of specific evidence, or any response to the opinion of the Healthcare Office, counsel relies on information from international reports."
"I will deal first with… the article 5 and 6 point. Had it been raised at an earlier stage, it may well have been possible to obtain clarification from Argentina as to the position on bail and the likely delay in this matter proceeding to trial. However, in view of the already inordinate delay in this case I have not thought it appropriate, nor indeed necessary, to ask for those further enquiries to be made. The information provided in the report (i.e. the 2011 US State Department report) is insufficient to establish a human rights barrier to extradition…."
Discussion and conclusions