Gomes, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In extradition proceedings, assurances from the requesting state are ordinarily presumed reliable because the requesting state is presumed to act in good faith. That presumption may be displaced by evidence of non-compliance. A renewed and sufficiently specific assurance may nevertheless provide a reliable basis for concluding that the requested person faces no real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Where new allegations suggest that an earlier assurance has been breached or that Convention rights may be at risk, the Secretary of State must investigate them. A short delay in transferring an extradited person to a Convention-compliant prison will not, without more, engage Article 3. Serious allegations of mistreatment require assessment on their substance.

Rick Anthony Gomes sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision of 26 August 2009 refusing to withdraw an order for his extradition to Trinidad and Tobago. His extradition had previously been ordered after challenges based on delay and the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

After his co-appellant, Mr Goodyer, was temporarily held in a police station and at Golden Grove prison before transfer to the Maximum Security Prison, Mr Gomes alleged that Trinidad and Tobago had breached its diplomatic assurance and that his own Article 3 rights were at risk. The central issues were whether the Secretary of State had lawfully assessed the new allegations and whether a further assurance concerning Mr Gomes was sufficient.

1. Outcome. The claim was dismissed. The refusal to withdraw the extradition order was not set aside, and the 28-day surrender period was to run from the announcement of the decision.
2. Reliability of assurances. Per Lord Justice Waller, assurances from a requesting state are ordinarily treated as reliable because of the fundamental assumption that the state acts in good faith. That assumption may be contradicted by evidence. Although the treatment of Mr Goodyer might have undermined the original assurance, there was no sufficient reason to doubt the renewed assurance of 21 July 2009 that Mr Gomes would be taken directly to the Maximum Security Prison.
3. Decision-making process. The Secretary of State was entitled to rely on the July correspondence. The court considered it almost impossible that the decision-maker, who had signed the relevant correspondence, had not considered it. In any event, proper further inquiries would have produced the renewed assurance and provided a lawful basis for refusing relief.
4. Article 3 allegations. A short delay in processing an extradited person or bringing him before a court, resulting in a limited delay before transfer to a Convention-compliant prison, would not of itself engage Article 3. However, allegations of serious mistreatment and breach of an assurance could not be reduced to a mere delay and required investigation.
5. The evidence filed before the court demonstrated that the breach of the original assurance was the result of an innocent administrative failure and that the further assurance concerning Mr Gomes could be relied upon.

• House of Lords. The appeals of Gomes and Goodyer concerning the passage-of-time bar to extradition were dismissed on 29 April 2009.
• High Court. The present judicial review challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal of 26 August 2009 was dismissed.