EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TODAY DECIDES GARRY MANN’S EXTRADITION TO PORTUGAL

For Immediate Release

On Tuesday 2 February, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will decide whether it should stand in to prevent Garry Mann’s extradition to Portugal after the British courts’ failure to do so. If Garry is extradited, he will be forced to serve a 2 year prison sentence imposed after a trial in Portugal that one British court has already concluded was “unfair” and that a British police officer, present at the trial, has described as a “farce”. He has no further right of appeal in Portugal.

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

“Little now stands in the way of Garry Mann’s unjust extradition to Portugal. The British courts recognise the injustice in this case but, so far, say they are powerless to stop it. We hope the ECHR will today step in and stop Garry being condemned to a 2 year prison sentence in Portugal.”

Garry’s trial in Portugal saw him arrested, tried and convicted all in the space of 48 hours. A British police officer in attendance at the trial has described how Garry was unable to instruct a lawyer and unable to understand the proceedings due to the poor quality of translation and interpretation provided. For this reason, a British court in 2005 found that his conviction in Portugal was unsafe and the trial had breached his fair trial rights.

Despite this, the Magistrates’ Court ordered Garry’s extradition in August 2009. In January of this year, the UK High Court recognised the injustice in Garry’s case but concluded that it was powerless to prevent his extradition. The Court called on the British Government, through diplomatic means, and the European Court of Human Rights to step in and deliver “some measure of justice” to Garry.

For more information please contact Priscillia de Corson on 020 7822 2386

Notes to Editors

• Garry Mann, a 52-year-old former fireman from Kent, attended the Euro 2004 football tournament in Portugal. While Garry Mann was spending the night with friends in a bar in Albufeira, a riot took place in a nearby street. Garry Mann was arrested on 15 June 2004, together with other suspects, some 4 hours after the riot.
   
• On 16 June 2004 – less than 48 hours after his arrest – Garry was convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. As reported by a British police officer in attendance, the trial in Portugal clearly breached Garry’s right to a fair trial, with:
  o Poor quality interpretation meaning that the defendants could not follow or participate in the trial. According to the UK police officer the trial interpreter was “a hairdresser from down the road to where the court was situated [and] a friend of the judge’s wife...”;
  o Inadequate legal representation (1 lawyer for 12 defendants);
  o No opportunity to prepare a defence (the trial having taken place within less than 48 hours of Garry Mann’s arrest) or to instruct his own lawyer.
   
• On 18 June 2004, Garry consented to his deportation to the UK after reportedly being told by the Portuguese authorities that the sentence would not be carried out if he agreed to voluntary deportation. He was then escorted to the airport by the Portuguese authorities and sent back to the UK without having to serve any time in prison in Portugal.
   
• Upon his return to the UK, Garry Mann’s case received significant public attention when David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, claimed that he would “nail this individual”. The Chief of Metropolitan police then applied for a worldwide football banning order to prevent Garry from travelling abroad to attend football matches. On 3 August 2005, Justice Stephen Day refused to grant the order, concluding Garry’s trial in Portugal was “so unfair as to be incompatible with the respondents’ right to a fair trial.”
   
• On 6 October 2008, more than four years after Garry was deported from Portugal, British police arrested him under a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Portuguese Judicial Authorities. His extradition was ordered by the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 18 August 2009.
   
• Garry now has no right to appeal against his unsafe conviction and he will not be granted a new hearing in Portugal; if he is extradited he will be sent to prison to serve a 2 year sentence.
   
• Garry’s legal team has made a number of legal challenges to the extradition:
  o They applied to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and asked them to prevent his extradition as it would violate his human rights. This application was rejected. The High Court has been asked to overturn SOCA’s refusal and to declare that the extradition would violate his right to a fair trial.
  o The Magistrates’ Court was asked to reopen the case and reconsider its initial decision but refused to do so. The High Court has been asked to require the Magistrates’ Court to reopen the case so new evidence could be considered and a new decision on Garry’s extradition could be made in light of this evidence.
  o An emergency Rule 39 application has been made to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 21 January 2010, asking for interim relief to prevent his extradition until the court considers his substantial application. The High Court has been asked to prevent the extradition until the European Court has made a decision on whether or not the extradition would violate Garry’s human rights.
   
• The High Court rejected 2 of Garry’s applications for a judicial review (JR) on 19 January. Lord Justice Moses however stated in its judgment that he could not “leave this application without remarking upon the inability of this court to rectify what appears to be a serious injustice to Mr Mann” He added that he hoped the “ECHR or the diplomatic authorities in the UK or in Portugal can strive to achieve some measure of justice for Mr Mann, a justice of which he has been so signally deprived by those on whom he had previously relied”.
   
• The last outstanding JR application will be considered before end of April 2010.
   
• 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. Garry’s case also demonstrates the need to better protect defence rights in Europe.