R (on the application of Vulnett Mucelli) and the SSHD

In many countries, including within Europe, it is common for trials to proceed without the presence or knowledge of the defendant. In these cases, the person facing extradition must have the right to a proper retrial following extradition. This month Fair Trials International intervened in an important High Court case regarding extradition following trials in absentia. The question we addressed is what a country needs to do to ensure that this requirement will be met before agreeing to extradite.

In the past, countries have simply assumed that other European states will live up to their human rights obligations and relied on assurances they have been given about what will happen post-extradition. Sadly, our own cases at FTI have shown that this blind faith approach is ill-founded because, even within Europe, countries fail to comply with basic human rights standards and fail to live up to the assurances they give when seeking extradition.

We therefore argued that, where there is evidence that a country has failed to live up to its human rights obligations in the past, the UK cannot simply assume that it will live up to these obligations in future. Instead, the UK must satisfy itself that practical and effective rights protection will be available in practice. The High Court accepted our arguments that mere assertions do not suffice and agreed that it is necessary to ensure that the rights in question are protected in the requesting country both in law and practice.

We are extremely grateful to Dr Rachel Barnes of 3 Raymond Buildings for her generous pro bono support in this case which enabled FTI to argue this important legal principle.