Wright v Argentina

Extradition must be refused where the evidence establishes a real risk that the requested person will suffer torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The assessment is fact-sensitive. Relevant matters include whether ill-treatment is systemic, its frequency, and the individual’s particular vulnerability. Reliable assurances about detention arrangements may be material, but general statements about likely accommodation will not necessarily constitute a binding inter-governmental undertaking. Article 8 imposes a high threshold: interference must be exceptionally serious before it outweighs the public interest in extradition. A claimed risk of suicide is insufficient without striking and unusual features. Article 5(3) requires evidence of a real risk of a flagrant breach, not merely lengthy pre-trial detention.

The claimant had been detained in Argentina after cocaine was found concealed in her luggage. She breached bail and returned to the United Kingdom. Argentina subsequently sought her extradition, and the Senior District Judge concluded that there was a case to answer under section 84 of the Extradition Act 2003 and that extradition was compatible with her Convention rights. The case was sent to the Secretary of State under section 87(3), and an extradition order was made.

On appeal under section 103, the claimant relied on fresh evidence concerning Argentine prison conditions and argued that extradition would breach Articles 3, 5(3) and 8 of the Convention. She also brought judicial review proceedings concerning decisions not to investigate or prosecute her in the United Kingdom, but abandoned those proceedings. The central issue was whether extradition would expose her to a real risk of Convention-incompatible treatment.

1. Article 3. The appeal was allowed because the evidence established a real risk that the claimant would suffer inhuman or degrading treatment in Argentina. The evidence showed systemic abuse of foreign women prisoners, including shortages of basic food and hygiene products, physical violence, inadequate protection from attacks, and degrading intimate searches. The claimant’s sex and foreign status made her particularly vulnerable. The evidence also showed inadequate redress.
2. The respondent’s evidence that the claimant would be housed in Unit 31 did not amount to an acceptable and binding inter-governmental undertaking. It did not state that she would remain there throughout detention or for any particular period. Prison transfers were routine, and the evidence concerning the relevant accommodation was incomplete.
3. Applying the real-risk approach in Miklis v The Deputy Prosecutor General of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1032 Admin, the court considered the systemic nature and frequency of the abuses and the claimant’s particular vulnerability. The evidence met the high threshold identified in Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 14 EHRR 439.
4. Article 8. The claimant was not then suffering from a mental illness, and her evidence did not disclose the striking and unusual features required to make extradition disproportionate. Even if balancing were required, the gravity of the admitted cocaine offence would weigh strongly in favour of extradition. The principles in Bensaid v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 205, J v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 629 and Jansons v Riga District Court, Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin) did not assist on these facts.
5. Article 5(3). Although lengthy pre-trial detention was likely, there was no evidence that it would not count towards the eventual sentence. The claimant therefore failed to establish a real risk of the flagrant breach required by R B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 2 AC 110. The extradition appeal was allowed on Article 3 grounds, and the judicial review claim was dismissed.

• Senior District Judge, Westminster Magistrates’ Court: concluded on 5 May 2010 that there was a case to answer under section 84 of the Extradition Act 2003 and that extradition was compatible with the Convention rights.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department: made an extradition order under section 93(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 on 3 July 2010.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal under section 103 on the ground that extradition would breach Article 3, and dismissed the judicial review proceedings.