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

Article 3 protection in extradition cases requires treatment reaching a high level of severity. Pain capable of being managed, temporary deterioration, and a suicide risk that falls materially below a very high level do not satisfy that threshold. Where harm arises from illness and lawful extradition processes, rather than deliberate mistreatment by the receiving state, the threshold is especially demanding. Assurances concerning medical care are highly relevant.

Article 8 requires a proportionality assessment. Extradition serves the compelling public interest in preventing crime and maintaining public order. Interference with private and family life must involve exceptionally serious or striking and unusual consequences before it outweighs that interest.

The claimant challenged decisions to extradite her to the United States for alleged fraud and child-abduction offences committed in 1997 and 1998. An earlier extradition decision had been quashed by consent after further medical evidence emerged. The claimant relied on severe depression, possible post-traumatic stress disorder, fibromyalgia, Crohn’s disease and a risk of suicide.

The court considered whether extradition would breach Articles 3 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether, having regard to the delay, the seriousness of the offences and the medical evidence, it would be unjust or oppressive under section 12(2)(a) of the Extradition Act 1989.

1. Article 3. The claim failed. The claimant’s fibromyalgia-related pain during travel and trial could be alleviated by a stretcher, increased morphine and appropriate medical care. The pain and worsening of symptoms would be temporary and were not expected to produce long-term consequences. The court proceeded on the basis that the claimant’s account was genuine, despite the possibility of exaggeration.
2. The suicide risk did not reach the Article 3 threshold. Although one expert considered that the claimant had a definite determination to kill herself if extradition occurred, another considered the depressive disorder episodic and capable of being managed with care and professional medical assistance. A very high risk might satisfy Article 3, but this risk fell significantly short of that level.
3. In the foreign element of the Article 3 claim, a high threshold applied because the alleged harm resulted from naturally occurring illness and lawful extradition and prosecution processes, rather than ill-treatment by the receiving state. The United States assurances concerning medical treatment were relevant and there was no reason to question them.
4. Article 8. Extradition interfered with private and family life, but served the legitimate aim of preventing crime and maintaining public order. The court had to assess proportionality, taking account of the medical consequences, suicide risk, family disruption, delay and the seriousness of the offences.
5. The public interest in giving effect to extradition treaties weighed very heavily. Extradition would not produce consequences sufficiently grave, striking or unusual to outweigh that interest. The claimant’s transfer, detention and medical care could be managed, and the extradition was proportionate.
6. The judicial review claim was dismissed. The decisions to extradite were upheld.

This was a first-instance judicial review. An earlier extradition decision was quashed by consent on 18 March 2006 after the Secretary of State accepted that further medical evidence required reconsideration. The present claim challenging the later decisions was dismissed.