Jervis v Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal Rennes, France

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, the question is whether, by reason of the requested person’s physical or mental condition, extradition would be unjust or oppressive. The issue is not simply whether the person has a psychiatric disorder, low intelligence, or may deteriorate after extradition. The evidence must establish the statutory threshold in the context of the proposed extradition. Evidence that appropriate medical assessment and treatment will be available in the requesting state may reinforce a conclusion that extradition is neither unjust nor oppressive. Procedural defects, alleged abuse of process and additional medical evidence will not satisfy section 25 unless they materially establish that statutory condition.

The appellant challenged an order of District Judge Tubbs directing his extradition to France under European Arrest Warrants relating to convictions for escaping custody and rape. He relied on alleged abuse of process, defects in earlier warrants, his treatment by the French authorities, and psychiatric evidence concerning anxiety, depression, paranoia, agitation and possible deterioration in France.

The central issue was whether, having regard to section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, his physical or mental condition made extradition unjust or oppressive.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court agreed with the District Judge’s conclusions on the separate procedural and abuse-of-process issues and on the medical issue. There was no order for costs.
2. Section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires the court to ask whether, by reason of the requested person’s physical or mental condition, extradition would be unjust or oppressive. The statutory question is not answered merely by proving a psychiatric disorder, low intelligence, or possible unfitness to stand trial.
3. The reports relied on by the appellant described symptoms which might worsen under stress and a possible need for close monitoring. Viewed alone, however, they fell far short of establishing that extradition to France would meet the statutory test. Evidence that medical and court facilities would be available in France reinforced the District Judge’s conclusion.
4. The alleged defects in the European Arrest Warrants, the treatment of the appellant in France and the asserted abuse of process did not, whether considered independently or cumulatively under section 25, improve the appellant’s case. The court applied the approach in Boudhiba v the Central Examining Court No 5 of the National Court of Justice, Spain [2007] 1 WLR 124, which kept attention on the statutory question rather than on diagnosis alone.

• District Judge Tubbs: ordered the appellant’s extradition on 31 March 2008.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and made no order for costs.