Wagner v The Court of Justice Miskole Hungary

For extradition to a Category 1 territory, refusal on the ground of suicide risk requires a very high risk. The court may presume that the requesting state will take proper steps to protect a prisoner with mental or physical health problems. A high risk, particularly where there is no underlying severe mental illness and the risk can be managed by appropriate prison care, may fall below the statutory threshold. Nevertheless, extradition should be conducted with safeguards proportionate to the identified risk, including transmission of medical records and arrangements for adequate observation during transfer.

The appellant faced return to Hungary under three extradition warrants. An accusation warrant was withdrawn and replaced by a conviction warrant. The remaining two warrants concerned convictions for robbery, theft and assault, with a total of approximately two years, four months and nine days left to serve before credit for time in custody.

The appellant appealed under section 25 of the Act, arguing that return would be oppressive because there was a real, and allegedly high, risk of suicide. The matter had been adjourned for psychiatric evidence. The central issue was whether the evidence crossed the high threshold for refusing extradition and, if not, what protective arrangements were required.

1. Disposition. The appeal relating to the withdrawn accusation warrant was allowed. The appeals relating to the two conviction warrants were dismissed, subject to directions concerning the appellant’s medical information and supervision during removal.
2. Under section 25 of the Act, nothing less than a very high risk of suicide will ordinarily justify refusal to extradite. In relation to a Category 1 territory, there is a presumption that proper measures will be taken to care for a prisoner with mental or physical health problems and to prevent suicide.
3. The independent psychiatric evidence established a high, but not extremely high, risk. The appellant had an adjustment disorder, previous self-harm and continuing suicidal thoughts, but no severe mental illness, psychosis or depression. His risk was being managed in custody and could be managed in a Hungarian prison through primary care and available mental-health treatment.
4. The evidence about Hungarian arrangements did not demonstrate that the necessary threshold was crossed. The Hungarian authorities were aware of their Convention obligations and had access to appropriate protective measures, including high-security accommodation, observation and psychiatric assessment.
5. Because the risk was nevertheless material, the Young Offenders Institution was directed to send the appellant’s medical notes and psychiatric report with him. The authorities were required to liaise with Hungary and ensure sufficient observation during transfer to prevent self-harm or suicide.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the accusation warrant had originally been considered by District Judge Snow on 11 July 2012. The substituted conviction warrant was considered by District Judge Grant on 13 January. The High Court allowed the appeal concerning the withdrawn accusation warrant and dismissed the two appeals concerning the conviction warrants.