Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Montpellier v Wade
Mr Wade did not deliberately absent himself from his trial in Montpellier because he was materially misinformed about the consequences of non-attendance and the nature of the hearing. Therefore, under section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, he must be discharged.
- Parties
- Claimant: Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Montpellier; Defendant: George Wade
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 10 July 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition Appeal / Appeal From Senior District Judge's Discharge Order
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extradition, Trial in Absentia, Right to Fair Trial, Waiver of Rights, European Arrest Warrant
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Montpellier
Claimant
George Wade
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal From Senior District Judge's Discharge Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr Wade deliberately absented himself from his trial under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003
- 2 Whether extradition would be compatible with Mr Wade's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights
Ratio Decidendi
Mr Wade did not deliberately absent himself from his trial in Montpellier because he was materially misinformed about the consequences of non-attendance and the nature of the hearing. Therefore, under section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, he must be discharged.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Mr Wade is discharged; no order for remand pending possible application for certification or leave to appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment