La Torre v Italy

Factual and Procedural Background

These statutory appeal proceedings arise under sections 26 and 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act") challenging decisions by District Judge Evans at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on 7 September 2006. The decisions involved sending certain extradition matters to the Secretary of State for determination and ordering extradition in others. The appellant, referred to as Plaintiff, is alleged to be a member of a Mafia/Camorra association responsible for serious crimes including murder, blackmail, and extortion. Plaintiff arrived in the United Kingdom from Italy in February 1996 and was arrested in July 1999 following an extradition request by the Italian authorities.

Five extradition requests have been made by Italy, designated LT1 through LT5. This appeal concerns LT2, LT4, and LT5. LT2 was issued under Part II of the 2003 Act (pre-European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") adoption by Italy), while LT4 and LT5 were issued under Part I (post-EAW adoption). The 2003 Act distinguishes between "accusation" charges (where the extraditee is wanted for trial) and "conviction" charges (where the extraditee has been convicted and is wanted to serve a sentence).

LT1 concerned both accusation and conviction charges and was governed by the Extradition Act 1989. Plaintiff was acquitted of all accusation charges in LT1 in 2004. A dispute over the sentence length for conviction charges in LT1 was resolved by a consent order in 2005, resulting in no further extradition on LT1. LT2 includes 13 accusation charges and 3 conviction charges; the conviction charges led to Plaintiff's discharge by the District Judge under section 85 of the 2003 Act. LT3, concerning three accusation charges, resulted in Plaintiff's discharge on grounds of passage of time.

LT4 and LT5, based on EAWs, concern two separate allegations of murder each and an additional firearms possession charge in LT4. Plaintiff was arrested in February 2006 on these warrants. The prosecution evidence primarily consists of testimony from "supergrass" witnesses ("pentiti"). Plaintiff claims that if extradited, he would be subjected to the harsh Article 41 bis prison regime in Italy, violating his European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR") rights, particularly Article 3, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the passage of time bars extradition in relation to the accusation charges in LT2, LT4, and LT5 under sections 11 and 14 (Part I) and sections 79 and 82 (Part II) of the 2003 Act.
2. Whether extradition would violate Plaintiff's Convention rights, particularly regarding the risk of exposure to the Article 41 bis prison regime, engaging sections 21 (Part I) and 87 (Part II) of the 2003 Act.
3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to discharge under sections 25 (Part I) and 91 (Part II) of the 2003 Act on grounds related to his physical or mental condition.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Passage of time: Plaintiff argued that the delay in extradition proceedings caused prejudice, including loss of evidence and death of a key witness, and created a false sense of security, rendering extradition unjust or oppressive.
• Convention rights: Plaintiff contended that extradition would expose him to Article 41 bis, a harsh Italian prison regime amounting to violation of Article 3 ECHR rights.
• Assurances given by Italian authorities regarding non-application of Article 41 bis were unreliable, as the Minister of Justice was not bound by them and could impose the regime regardless.
• Mental health: Plaintiff asserted that previous exposure to Article 41 bis adversely affected his mental health, making extradition unjust or oppressive under section 25.

Respondent's Arguments

• Passage of time: Respondent argued that delays were either justified by case complexity or due to lack of evidence to justify earlier arrest; no culpable delay existed to bar extradition.
• Convention rights: Respondent relied on assurances from the Italian authorities, including a declaration by the Minister of Justice, that Plaintiff would not be subjected to Article 41 bis upon return.
• Assurances were sufficient to eliminate real risk of violation of Article 3 rights.
• Mental health claim was moot as Plaintiff would not be subjected to the Article 41 bis regime.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the statutory framework under the 2003 Act, distinguishing between Part I (EAW states) and Part II (non-EAW states), noting the provisions relevant to bars to extradition based on passage of time and Convention rights.

Regarding the risk of violation of Article 3 ECHR rights due to the Article 41 bis regime, the court considered extensive evidence including Plaintiff's testimony, expert reports, and assurances from Italian authorities. Initially, the court was inclined to reject the assurance given by the Deputy State Prosecutor as insufficient, noting that the Minister of Justice, who alone decides on the regime's application, was not bound by it. Expert evidence suggested a high likelihood Plaintiff would be subjected to Article 41 bis.

However, subsequent fresh evidence included a direct declaration by the Minister of Justice confirming that Plaintiff would not be subjected to the Article 41 bis regime if extradited. The court found this assurance credible and authoritative, given the Minister's decision-making role and the context of shared European extradition regimes. The court acknowledged legal authorities recognizing the limitations of assurances but emphasized the presumption of good faith and the nature of the assurance as relating to discretionary executive action rather than disapplication of law.

On the passage of time grounds, the court applied the principles from Kakis and related case law, considering whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to delay. The court accepted that some delay was culpable, particularly regarding certain charges supported by telephone intercepts, but noted that other delays were justified by case complexity. The court found no sufficient prejudice to Plaintiff's defence to bar extradition, recognizing the availability of procedural safeguards in Italy and the absence of evidence to the contrary. The court rejected Plaintiff's claim of a false sense of security, noting prior communications from Italian authorities indicating further extradition requests.

On the mental health ground under section 25, the court found it added nothing beyond the Convention rights argument, as Plaintiff would not face the Article 41 bis regime.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The decision confirms the court's willingness to rely on credible assurances from the requesting state’s competent authorities regarding the treatment of the extradited individual, especially within the context of the European Arrest Warrant framework. It also reinforces the application of established principles regarding the passage of time as a bar to extradition, emphasizing a balanced assessment of delay, culpability, and prejudice rather than strict rules. The ruling directly results in the continuation of the extradition process against Plaintiff on the specified charges, without setting new legal precedent beyond the application of existing law.