Ahmad v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to challenge extradition on human-rights grounds requires an arguable case that extradition creates substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of infringement. The possibility that a claimant will be abroad, or detained under special administrative measures, does not itself establish a breach of Articles 3 or 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Adequate diplomatic assurances, including protection for lawyer-client communications and access to video evidence, may remove that risk. Civil proceedings can ordinarily be adapted to permit meaningful participation by video link. The public interest in progressing extradition weighs against delaying it where the proposed challenge has no merit.

The claimant, a British national facing extradition to the United States under the Extradition Act 2003, sought permission for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to suspend extradition. He alleged that extradition would impair his ability to pursue civil proceedings against the Metropolitan Police and would breach Articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The concerns included access to legal advice, lawyer-client privilege, communication arrangements, legal funding, video participation and a possible MRI scan. His earlier extradition appeal had been dismissed on 30 November 2006, with leave to appeal refused. The issue was whether the additional challenge disclosed an arguable ground for judicial review.

1. Permission refused. The court was satisfied that there was no arguable case that extradition gave rise to substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of breach of Articles 3 or 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. The fact that the claimant would be abroad did not, in principle, prevent a fair civil trial. Video evidence is routinely used, and the trial judge could adapt civil procedure and the timetable to address difficulties with timing or the availability of evidence.
3. The United States Department of Justice assurances were sufficiently wide-ranging. They indicated that lawyer-client privilege would remain protected, that communications relating to the civil proceedings could be accommodated, and that reasonable steps would be taken to provide video facilities. Any concern about representation by English lawyers could be addressed through a United States lawyer if necessary.
4. The Legal Services Commission correspondence did not establish that the civil proceedings could not proceed through video link and communication from the United Kingdom. The court also considered that an MRI scan could be arranged in advance and urged the Secretary of State to address that issue directly with the Secretary of State for Justice.
5. The public interest in progressing extradition was relevant, provided that doing so remained consistent with justice in the individual case. Delaying extradition on the basis advanced would have been unattractive and unjustified.
6. The court expressed a provisional view that matters of this kind would better have been raised during the earlier extradition appeal, but did not determine that procedural issue because full argument had not been heard.

The claimant was ordered to pay the costs, subject to detailed assessment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant’s earlier extradition appeal was dismissed on 30 November 2006 and leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. The present application for permission to seek judicial review was refused.