Griffin, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court

An extradition hearing may proceed in the requested person’s absence where the person is represented. Representation is treated as presence unless an enactment expressly requires physical presence. The court also retains an inherent power to proceed where necessary to avoid injustice.

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, a serious risk of suicide may make extradition oppressive. The risk must be very high, and the court must consider the treatment and protective measures available in the requesting state, the seriousness of the offence, and any manipulation of the risk. A risk arising equally from proceedings in either country will not ordinarily prevent extradition where the requesting state can provide appropriate care.

Ian Griffin faced extradition to France to stand trial for murder. The District Judge ordered extradition on 3 December 2010 after refusing to adjourn the hearing when Mr Griffin was in hospital following an overdose and could not attend.

Mr Griffin brought judicial review proceedings challenging the refusal to adjourn and appealed against the extradition order. The central issues were whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to proceed in his absence, whether further medical evidence was required, and whether his mental condition and risk of suicide made extradition unjust, oppressive or incompatible with his Convention rights.

1. Jurisdiction to proceed in absence. The claim challenging the refusal to adjourn and the appeal against extradition were heard together. Section 10(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 did not expressly require the appellant’s physical presence. By section 9(1), the extradition judge had, as nearly as possible, the powers of a magistrates’ court conducting a summary trial. Section 122 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 deemed a represented absent party not to be absent and therefore displaced section 11(2A). The District Judge had jurisdiction. The court also had an inherent power to proceed in the absence of a represented defendant where doing so caused no injustice, following the reasoning in R v Bow Street Magistrates Court ex p Government of Germany [1998] Q.B. 556 (paras [26]-[34]).
2. Adjournment. The relevant question was whether fresh information might have made a difference to the District Judge’s decision, rather than whether it would necessarily have done so. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that further delay was likely to provoke another serious incident and that further medical information would not alter the decision (para [35]).
3. Oppression and suicide risk. A risk of suicide can amount to oppression under section 25. The proper approach is not confined to cases where suicide is certain, but requires independent and convincing evidence of a very high risk of successful suicide if extradition occurs. The court must consider the requesting state’s ability to provide psychiatric care and prevent self-harm, the public interest in honouring extradition obligations, the seriousness of the offence, and whether the risk is being used instrumentally. The reasoning in Wroble v Poland [2011] EWHC 374 (Admin) was endorsed (paras [40]-[45]).
4. Application. France could provide appropriate psychiatric treatment and protective measures. The appellant’s risk of self-harm arose from stress associated with the proceedings and was likely to exist whether he was tried in England or France. The evidence did not establish a very high risk that he would successfully commit suicide if extradited. The seriousness of the murder charge also weighed against treating extradition as oppressive. The District Judge’s use of a certainty test was wrong, but her decision was nevertheless correct on the evidence. The claim and appeal were dismissed. The medical records were to be supplied to the French authorities and the appellant was to receive the utmost care during extradition (paras [46]-[52]).

1. City of Westminster Magistrates Court. The District Judge refused to adjourn the extradition hearing and ordered Mr Griffin’s extradition to France on 3 December 2010.
2. High Court (Administrative Court). Judicial review was granted permission and heard with the appeal against extradition. The claim and appeal were both dismissed.