FBIA suspected terrorist who evaded the FBI for more than 20 years before being found in Wales has appeared in court for an extradition hearing.
Daniel Andreas San Diego, 47, was one of the agency’s “most wanted fugitives” after bombings in San Francisco, California, in 2003.
He was arrested last November in a remote location near Maenan, Conwy, after 21 years on the run.
The extradition hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court will decide if he will be sent back to the United States to face trial.
The court heard how Mr San Diego’s car was searched following bombings at two companies in August and September 2003.
The companies had links to the pharmaceutical company Huntingdon Life Sciences, which was targeted by animal rights campaigners for more than a decade.
Two bombs exploded at a company site in Emeryville, California, on August 28 2003.
A month later, on September 26, 2003, a bomb strapped with nails exploded at a site in Pleasanton, California.
There were no injuries sustained in either bombing.
Westminster Magistrates Court heard that Mr San Diego was stopped by a traffic warden an hour before the blast in Pleasanton.
On 8 October, a search of his house was carried out, where magazines and pamphlets suggesting an interest in animal rights were found.
A day later, a search of Mr San Diego’s car in found several ingredients for making explosives.
These included including pipes, acetone and copper wire consistent with that found on the devices used in the two bombings.
His fingerprints were found on some items in the car, including the acetone.
After his disappearance from California, the FBI named Mr San Diego on their most wanted list alongside others including Osama Bin Laden.
Aled EvansProsecutor Joel Smith, a lawyer representing the US authorities, told the court that if extradited to the United States, Mr San Diego faces charges of causing damage and destruction by explosives, carrying an unregistered firearm and using or carrying explosives.
David Patton – an expert on American criminal law – when asked if the charges against Mr San Diego were “legally coherent” said that aspects of the indictment violate the US constitution and that in his opinion there was a risk of double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy in US law protects against being prosecuted twice for the same crime.
Defending, Mark Summers KC suggested an example would be charges accusing Mr San Diego of “the possession of a bomb for the purposes of bombing” and that it would be “plainly inaccurate that they could be tried together”.
Mr Patton also said that in the USA prosecutors can stack different charges against a defendant based on the same conduct, and each individual charge can carry its own mandatory minimum sentence.
In such cases, Mr Patton said defendants can face a potential sentence of life imprisonment, and can therefore be coerced into a guilty plea without any trial being held.
He said this system has led to a decline in the number of trials in the USA – in late 1970s and early 80s around 15 – 20% of all offences went to trial.
It is now around 2% because going to trial is “far too great a risk for many defendants,” according to Mr Patton.
The hearing continues.
