Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Montpellier v Wade [2006] EWHC 1909 (Admin) (10 July 2006)

Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Montpellier v Wade [2006] EWHC 1909 (Admin) (10 July 2006)

Mr Wade did not deliberately absent himself from his trial in Montpellier because he was materially misinformed about the nature and consequences of the hearing; therefore, under section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, he must be discharged as he would not be entitled to a retrial or review amounting to a retrial if extradited.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1909 (Admin)
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 Under European Arrest Warrant, Conviction in Absentia, Right to Fair Trial, Waiver of Attendance at Trial
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Extradition Under European Arrest Warrant Conviction in Absentia Right to Fair Trial Waiver of Attendance at Trial

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Wade deliberately absented himself from his trial in France under section 20(3) Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether Mr Wade would be entitled to a retrial or review amounting to a retrial if extradited
  3. 3 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 nature and consequences of the hearing; therefore, under section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, he must be discharged as he would not be entitled to a retrial or review amounting to a retrial if extradited.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Wade is discharged under section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003.
  • Claimant granted 14 days to apply in writing for certification and leave to appeal, if so advised.