Ragul & Anor v The Government of Azerbaijan

In an extradition appeal, generic evidence of poor prison conditions, lengthy pre-trial detention or defects in the requesting state’s criminal justice system does not by itself establish a Convention bar. The requested person must show strong grounds for believing that extradition creates a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3, a flagrant denial of a fair trial under article 6, or an equivalent high-threshold violation under articles 5 or 8. A state party to the ECHR is presumed to comply with its Convention obligations, but that presumption can be rebutted by clear and cogent evidence. For oppression based on suicide risk, the court assesses the particular mental condition, the risk of a successful attempt, protective arrangements in the United Kingdom, during transfer and in the requesting state, and the public interest in extradition.

Azerbaijan requested the extradition of two appellants to face fraud charges. The District Judge rejected their objections under articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 ECHR and sent the cases to the Secretary of State, who ordered extradition. On appeal, the appellants relied on updated reports concerning detention conditions, pre-trial detention and the independence and fairness of the Azerbaijani courts. One appellant also relied on family and medical circumstances under article 8. The other relied on a recent suicide attempt and section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003, contending that extradition would be oppressive. The central issues were whether the evidence established Convention violations or oppression sufficient to prevent extradition, and whether the appeals should be adjourned because of domestic criminal proceedings.

1. The application to adjourn was refused. Section 113(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 permitted the court, in an appropriate case, to extend the time for an extradition appeal to begin while domestic criminal proceedings were resolved. That discretion did not create a presumption in favour of postponement. The statutory scheme and the need to avoid delay remained important, and the circumstances here did not make an adjournment in the interests of justice.

2. The appeals were dismissed. The article 3 threshold in an extradition case required strong grounds for believing that the appellants faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The evidence showed serious historic and continuing deficiencies in parts of Azerbaijan’s prison estate, but also substantial improvements, monitoring and a modern Baku detention facility in which the appellants were expected to be held. There was no clear and cogent evidence that Azerbaijan would fail to honour its Convention obligations or that these appellants faced a real risk of article 3 ill-treatment.

3. The evidence concerning possible pre-trial detention of up to 18 months did not establish a violation of article 5. The relevant assurance was that the case would be presented to the first-instance court within three months. Even without that assurance, the evidence did not show a detention system denying the essence of the article 5 right.

4. The general criticisms of judicial independence, corruption and trial practice did not establish a real risk of a flagrant denial of a fair trial under article 6. The appellants were not political defendants or otherwise within a category attracting particular concern. The evidence concerning lawyers, interpreters, reform, public scrutiny and British consular oversight was relevant to the assessment.

5. Article 8 required a very strong factual case before family or medical circumstances could outweigh the public interest in extradition. Neither appellant met that threshold. Nor did the evidence establish oppression under section 91. The court assessed the suicide risk at the stages of custody in the United Kingdom, transit and detention in Azerbaijan. A serious previous attempt and impaired resistance to suicidal impulses were insufficient where appropriate protective and medical arrangements could be expected and no serious deficiency in Azerbaijani safeguards was shown.

Lord Justice Moses agreed with Mr Justice Burnett.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeals from the District Judge’s extradition decisions were dismissed. The District Judge had sent the cases to the Secretary of State under section 87(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, and the Secretary of State subsequently ordered extradition under section 93(4).