Badzo v District Court In Rokycany Czech Republic

Extradition should not be barred by an alleged suicide risk unless the evidence establishes a sufficiently high risk of suicide. The appellant bears responsibility for obtaining and presenting the necessary evidence before the extradition judge. An appeal is not ordinarily an opportunity to obtain further psychiatric evidence which differs from or contradicts the evidence presented below. Where the evidence indicates a presently low risk that may increase following adverse news, appropriate support and monitoring may address the risk without preventing extradition.

A European Arrest Warrant sought the claimant’s extradition to the Czech Republic to serve an eight-and-a-half-year sentence. The District Judge ordered extradition and rejected arguments based on threats from a Czech police officer, alleged mental-health problems and suicide risk.

On appeal, the claimant accepted that the protection and suicide-risk grounds could not succeed on the evidence before the District Judge. He nevertheless sought an adjournment to obtain further psychiatric evidence, including evidence following a face-to-face assessment. The central issue was whether the existing evidence justified intervention to prevent extradition or an adjournment for further evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claimant accepted that the alleged risk from a Czech police officer did not provide a basis for resisting extradition. Responsibility for protecting him against crime by Czech citizens lay with the Czech Republic.
2. The stringent test for intervention based on suicide risk was that stated by Aikens LJ in Turner v USA [2012] EWHC 2426. The evidence before the District Judge did not establish a sufficiently high risk that the claimant would take his own life.
3. The psychiatric evidence showed that the claimant was not mentally disordered and was presently mentally and physically well. Although his suicide risk might increase if he received adverse news, the recommended response was support and monitoring during and after the extradition hearing, not abandonment of extradition.
4. The obligation to obtain and present evidence supporting a suicide-risk argument rested on the claimant and those representing him. The appeal court declined to adjourn for further psychiatric evidence because nothing indicated that further investigation would establish a sufficiently high risk to prevent extradition. The application for a legal assessment order was granted.

1. District Judge Coleman: On 12 April 2013, ordered the claimant’s extradition and rejected his arguments concerning threats, mental health and suicide risk.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): On 1 May 2013, dismissed the appeal and granted a legal assessment order.