Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Montpellier v Wade

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether Mr Wade deliberately absented himself from his trial under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003
  2. 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.