By Anagnostakis Law Team.
In the recent landmark ruling by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, District Judge John Zani ordered the discharge of Marie Golby from extradition proceedings sought by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Court of Appeal of Athens, Greece. The decision exemplifies the legal nuances and challenges associated with European Arrest Warrants (EAW) and the thorough judicial scrutiny required by UK courts in extradition cases. Notably, the ruling also highlights chronic and systemic failures within the Greek judicial system that frequently undermine the efficacy of Greek arrest warrants in the UK extradition context.
#### Summary of the Case
Marie Golby faced extradition to Greece to answer a charge of child abduction involving a Romanian minor in Athens on December 12, 2006. The EAW was issued on February 16, 2010, and Golby was arrested under its terms on November 2, 2018. Despite the seriousness of the offense, several statutory and human rights challenges were raised leading to her discharge.
#### Key Challenges and Judicial Findings
1. **s.2(4)(b) – Particulars of the Warrant:**
Golby argued that the EAW was invalid, asserting that she had been convicted in absentia in 2017 and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. The court, referencing *Zakrzewski v Poland (2013)*, found that the EAW complied with s.2 provisions, dismissing this challenge but noted potential abuse by Greek authorities in delaying extradition proceedings. This reflects a systemic issue where Greek authorities fail to maintain accurate and current information in their warrants, often causing them to falter under legal scrutiny in UK courts.
2. **s.14 – Passage of Time:**
The passage of time since the alleged offense and Golby’s actions post-offense were scrutinized under *Kakis v Government of Cyprus (1978)* and *Gomes & Goodyear v Governments of Trinidad & Tobago (2009)*, among others. The court concluded that Golby was a fugitive, thus barring her from invoking s.14 protections, leading to the failure of this challenge. This challenge highlights the chronic inefficiency and delays within the Greek judicial process which, in many instances, impede timely legal proceedings and fair extradition.
3. **Article 3 – Prison Conditions:**
A fundamental argument against extradition was based on the prison conditions in Greece, particularly at Korydallos. The court, relying on reports by Professor Konstantinos Tsitselikis and the CPT, found substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Other cases, such as *Rudmilla Biltoo*, set precedent for considering systemic issues in Greek prisons. This challenge succeeded, highlighting sustained and systemic concerns over Greek prison standards, which consistently fail to meet international human rights standards as per numerous reports and repeated findings by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).
4. **Article 8 – Right to a Private / Family Life:**
The court conducted a detailed balancing exercise, guided by rulings in *Norris v Government of USA (2010)*, *HH v Italy (2012)*, and *Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski & Others (2015)*. Despite acknowledging the public interest in fulfilling international obligations, the impact of extradition on Golby’s private life, due to her health and the prolonged delay from offense to arrest, was deemed disproportionate. This challenge, therefore, succeeded. The court’s decision illuminates a systemic failure within the Greek judicial process to consider the lengthy delays and their disproportionate impact on individuals’ private and family life.
5. **s.20 – Right to a Re-trial:**
Examining Golby’s trial in absentia, the court referenced frameworks such as the Council Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA) and cases like *Dziel v Poland (2019)*. The court found that Golby had not been properly informed and served, denying her fair recourse to a re-trial. This key challenge succeeded, reinforcing the systemic deficiencies in the Greek system where the rights of individuals tried in absentia are inadequately protected, and the procedural requirements for fair trials are frequently unmet.
6. **s.25 – Health:**
Golby’s mental health, notably the substantial risk of suicide as confirmed by Dr. Andrew Forrester, was crucial. The judgments in *Wrobel v Poland (2011)* and *Wolkowicz v Poland (2013)* set important tests for assessing risk. The court ruled that extradition would be oppressive and unjust due to her severe mental health issues. This challenge succeeded. This decision underscores the chronic failure of the Greek system to account for and appropriately address the mental health conditions of individuals subject to extradition proceedings.
7. **Abuse of Process:**
Echoing *R v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex p. Kola (1994)*, the court found that extradition would abuse the judicial process. The Greek authorities’ handling of the EAW and subsequent conviction in absentia without adequate legal recourse constituted an abuse of process. This argument furnished a final ground for Golby’s discharge. The case illustrates systemic abuse and procedural flaws by Greek authorities in handling legal processes, which repeatedly manifest in similar extradition challenges before UK courts.
#### Expert Testimony and Acceptance
Alexis Anagnostakis, a member of the Athens Bar and a member of the Advisory Board of the European Criminal Bar Association, attended the court as an expert witness. His detailed report on Greek criminal law and procedure was admitted into evidence, and the court accepted many of his key points. Anagnostakis’s analysis, which included a critique of the procedural handling of Golby’s case by the Greek authorities and the prison conditions in Greece, played a pivotal role in the court’s decisions under Article 3, s.20, and the abuse of process considerations. His expertise underscored the systemic issues within the Greek judicial system that compromise the validity and fairness of EAWs.
#### Chronic and Systemic Failures of the Greek Judicial System
The grounds for refusal in Golby’s case are symptomatic of deeper, chronic issues within the Greek judicial and penal systems that repeatedly cause Greek arrest warrants to fail in the UK extradition courts. Key systemic failures include:
– **Inefficient and Delayed Judicial Processes:** Chronic delays and inefficiencies hinder timely proceedings and the proper administration of justice, undermining trust in the Greek judicial system.
– **Inadequate Prison Conditions:** The recurring inhuman and degrading conditions in Greek prisons, as consistently reported by international bodies like the CPT, demonstrate systemic failures that pose substantial risks to extradited individuals.
– **Fair Trial Violations:** Greek authorities frequently fail to uphold fair trial standards, particularly in cases involving trials in absentia, where procedural safeguards are often disregarded.
– **Mismanagement of Warrants:** Inaccurate and outdated information in EAWs reflect poor legal and administrative management within the Greek system, leading to frequent invalidation of warrants.
– **Health and Human Rights Concerns:** Chronic neglect of the physical and mental health needs of individuals subject to extradition further undermine the credibility and fairness of the Greek judicial process.
#### Conclusion
The case of Golby v. Greece demonstrates critical judicial principles in extradition law and illustrates the chronic and systemic failures within the Greek judicial system that contribute to the repeated invalidation of Greek arrest warrants. The detailed judicial assessment underscores the importance of safeguarding human rights, ensuring fair trial rights, and addressing the systemic inefficiencies and deficiencies that impede justice. This ruling sets a significant precedent and highlights the intricate balance between international legal cooperation and fundamental human rights protections within UK courts.
