British fire fighter Garry Mann to face extradition

For Immediate RELEASE

Garry Mann’s extradition hearing begins today at the Westminster Magistrates’ court. The Court will decide whether to extradite Mann to serve a 2 year prison sentence, allegedly imposed by a Portuguese court in 2004. One British Court has already considered Mann’s fast-track prosecution in Portugal and concluded that the proceedings breached his basic right to a fair trial.

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

“In 2005 the British courts concluded that Garry Mann’s trial in Portugal had breached basic standards of fairness and that his conviction was unreliable. We hope that, in 2009, they will stand by these conclusions. After the catalogue of injustice in the Portuguese court, this unexpected request for Garry’s extradition must be rejected.”

Garry was the subject of a fast track legal procedure in Portugal designed to deal with football hooliganism in the context of the Euro 2004 Championships. He was arrested, tried and convicted in the space of 24 hours, was unable to instruct a lawyer and unable to understand or participate in the trial due to the poor quality of translation and interpretation. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment but told the sentence would not be enforced on the condition he agreed to be deported from Portugal. Mann came to wider public attention in 2004 when, upon his return to the UK, David Blunkett vowed to “nail” him.

Notes to editors

Garry Mann, a 51-year-old fireman from Kent, went to Portugal during the Euro 2004 football tournament. While Garry Mann was spending a night with friends in a bar in Albufeira, a riot took place in a nearby street. Garry Mann was arrested on 15 June 2004 along with other suspects some 4 hours after the alleged offences. A summary procedure took place and he was tried and convicted on 16 June 2004 of involvement in a riot.

The trial in Portugal was a travesty of justice, with major breaches of Mann’s rights to a fair trial, including:

• Inadequate legal representation (1 lawyer for 12 defendants);
• No opportunity to prepare a defence (the trial having taken place within 24 hours of Mann’s arrest) or to instruct a lawyer;
• Poor quality interpretation meaning that the defendants could not follow or participate in the trial.

Following this unfair trial Mann was convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment on 16 June 2004. He voluntarily agreed to being deported and was told that, in the circumstances, provided he would not return to Portugal within 1 year, his sentence would be varied and he would not have to serve a prison sentence.

Upon his return to the UK, Mann’s case received significant public attention when David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, claimed that he would “nail him”. The Chief of Metropolitan police took out an application for a worldwide football banning order to prevent Mann from travelling abroad to attend football matches.

The Magistrate Court considered this application in 2005 and refused to grant the banning order due to the serious flaws with the trial in Portugal. During the proceedings the Judge found that there were significant breaches of Garry Mann’s Article 6 rights to a fair trial (as outlined above).

Earlier this year, Garry Mann was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Portuguese Judicial Authorities on 06 October 2008. The Warrant requests his return to Portugal to serve the alleged 2 years sentence.

The extradition hearing is scheduled on 30 June 2009 at 2pm at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court.

Fair Trials International has serious concerns about the European Arrest Warrant. 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;
• 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).