A European arrest warrant issued when the requested person was the accused in criminal proceedings and before his conviction in absentia was still valid after the conviction because, under Czech law, such a conviction was not final and enforceable, and so at the time of the extradition hearing he was still an accused person and thus the statement and information contained in the warrant remained applicable.
The Extradition Act 2003 s.2(6)(b) did not require a European arrest warrant issued in respect of a person who had been convicted to contain particulars of the offence in the same detail as required for a warrant issued in respect of an accused person in s.2(4)(c).
The Italian court had properly sought the extradition of an individual as an accused person, rather than a convicted person, even though he had been convicted and sentenced for drugs offences in Italy. His appeal against conviction and sentence was outstanding, and under Italian law neither the judgment nor sentence was final or enforceable until the criminal appeal process had been concluded.
An extradition order in respect of an alleged offender was properly made as it was abundantly apparent that he was not merely a suspect but was being sought by the requesting state as an accused person.
The reverse onus provisions contained in s.139(4) and (5) Criminal Justice Act 1988 were proportionate. They struck a fair balance between the general interest of the community in the realisation of a legitimate aim and the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual.