Court orders Garry Mann’s extradition to Portugal

Garry Mann and his family

For Immediate Release
 

A Court today ordered Garry Mann, a 51-year-old fireman, to be extradited to Portugal to serve a two year sentence, despite another English Court having previously described his Portuguese trial as “unfair”. His extradition is sought in connection with alleged football hooliganism in Albufeira in 2004. Garry will appeal against extradition.

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

“Something is wrong with EU extradition laws if one English Court has to send Garry to jail in Portugal, when another has branded his trial as 'unfair'.”

Garry was the subject of a fast-track legal procedure in Portugal designed to deal with football hooliganism in the Euro 2004 Championships. He was arrested, tried and convicted in the space of 24 hours and was unable to instruct a lawyer or 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 if he agreed to be deported from Portugal. He did so, and was astonished to be arrested in March 2009 on a European Arrest Warrant demanding his return to Portugal to serve the alleged 2 years sentence.

Notes to editors

Garry Mann, a fireman from Kent, went to Portugal during the Euro 2004 football tournament. While he was with friends in a bar in Albufeira, a riot took place in a nearby street. He was arrested on 15 June 2004 along with other suspects, some 4 hours after the alleged offences. A summary procedure took place and on 16 June 2004 he was tried and convicted 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 and only one interpreter, 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 be deported after being told that, provided he did not return to Portugal within 1 year, 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 Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police took out an application for a worldwide football banning order to prevent Mann from travelling abroad to attend football matches.

The Magistrates Court considered this application in 2005 and refused to grant the banning order due to serious flaws in 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 6 October 2008. The Warrant requests his return to Portugal to serve the alleged 2 year sentence.

The extradition hearing took place on 29 July 2009 at 2pm at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court. Garry Mann will continue to fight his extradition. An appeal will be held later this year. We will continue to support Garry in his fight for justice.

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, English courts have allowed extradition even where:

• extradition is to serve 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, for example it involves mistreatment of witnesses;
• extradition would be grossly disproportionate to the offence allegedly committed; and
• a Warrant has been issued many years after the alleged offence takes place (in one case we are aware of someone being arrested 20 years after the alleged offence ).