Andrew Symeou wins fight to take his case against extradition to House of Lords

For Immediate Release

Andrew Symeou’s fight against the decision to extradite him to Greece to face trial will continue in the British courts. The High Court decided today that Andrew can now apply to take his case to the House of Lords.

Jago Russell, Chief Executive of Fair Trials International, said:

“Today’s decision opens the door for Andrew to take his fight to the House of Lords and gives us reason to hope that this young man will not become the latest victim of the European Arrest Warrant system. We should cooperate with the rest of Europe in the fight against crime but not at the expense of basic principles of justice and fairness.”

Andrew Symeou’s extradition is sought by Greece in connection with a death in a nightclub in Zante in 2007. The case against Andrew is built on mistaken identity, conflicting evidence, and a flawed police investigation involving violent intimidation of witnesses. Andrew’s lawyers argued that the British courts should refuse to extradite a person where the evidence against them is obtained through police brutality and successfully argued today this is a point of public importance which could be considered by the House of Lords.

Notes to editors

On 1 May, the High Court decided that Andrew Symeou (from Enfield) should be extradited to Greece to face trial under a European Arrest Warrant. Andrew applied for leave to take his case to the House of Lords on the basis that it would be an abuse of process for the British courts to order his extradition on the basis that the evidence against him was obtained through police brutality. Today the Court agreed that this was a point of public importance that could be considered by the House of Lords.

Andrew is a 20 year old British man from Enfield in North London. In July 2007, he went on holiday with friends to Zante, Greece. His extradition is sought by the Greek Judicial Authority pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (the “EAW”) issued in June 2008.

While Andrew was staying in Zante another young British man, Jonathan Hiles, fell off an unguarded stage platform in a night-club, became unconscious and, tragically, died two days later from his head injury. Andrew is accused in the EAW of having struck Mr Hiles and caused him to fall. But Andrew is adamant that he was not even in the night-club at the time – and many witnesses have since confirmed this.

Two of Andrew’s friends were interviewed by Greek police after Andrew himself had left Zante. (Andrew himself has never been interviewed by Greek police.) These young men have reported that they were subjected to brutal treatment by the police, who held them for 8 hours without food or water. While in custody they were beaten, punched, slapped and threatened by the officers until they gave statements implicating Andrew in connection with what happened to Mr Hiles. They immediately retracted the statements on their release and informed consular officials about the treatment they received.

Other serious flaws with the evidence against Andrew include:

• Mistaken identity: Witnesses to the incident describe the attacker as tall and blonde with scarred skin. Andrew is black-haired and had a beard and a moustache.
• No attempt was ever made by the Greek authorities to get a statement from Andrew.
• There is strong evidence that witness statements were manufactured by Zante police. The same police officers were reported as taking statements in two different places at the same time. Witnesses also gave statements which were word-for-word identical.
• CCTV footage showing those involved in the incident leaving the nightclub has been deleted and is not available to use in Andrew’s defence.
• Statements given by witnesses to Andrew’s solicitor state that he was not in the nightclub at the time of the incident and only arrived 3 hours after the confrontation

Fair Trials International has serious concerns about this fast-track system for extradition within Europe. In practice, the system has been interpreted as leaving no scope for the British courts to prevent an extradition even where, as in this case, it would lead to clear injustice. In particular the British courts have allowed extraditions under this system where:

• The extradition relates to a prison sentence resulting from a grossly unfair trial (even in cases where the defendant has not been informed of the trial);
• There is a very real risk that the person concerned will not receive a fair trial;
• The prosecution is based on a flawed police investigation, even where it involves mistreatment;
• Extradition would be grossly disproportionate to the offence allegedly committed; and
• An EAW is issued many years after the alleged offence takes place (in one case we are aware of someone being arrested 20 years after the offence allegedly took place).