McIntyre v The United States of America

In extradition proceedings, an adjournment to obtain psychiatric evidence requires a properly evidenced and timely application. A speculative request, raised late and unsupported by medical evidence, does not justify delaying the appeal. Case-management directions are orders of the court and must be obeyed. A party who cannot comply must apply promptly for their variation. The court may refuse further time where directions have been disobeyed and the proposed evidence would not establish an arguable ground against extradition.

The appellant appealed under sections 103 and 93(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made by a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Extradition was sought by the United States for prosecution on charges involving conspiracy to commit wire fraud and illegal gratuities.

The appellant relied on section 91 of the Act and sought an adjournment to obtain psychiatric evidence concerning alleged post-traumatic stress disorder following service in Iraq. The District Judge had refused the application because it was made at the last minute and was unsupported by evidence. Before the appeal, further case-management directions required medical and other evidence to be filed by specified dates. Those directions were not obeyed. The central issue was whether the appeal should be adjourned to allow further time for psychiatric evidence and a change of solicitors.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extradition order stood. No other ground for refusing extradition was advanced.
2. An adjournment to obtain psychiatric evidence was properly refused where the request was raised only at the last minute, there was no evidence that the appellant suffered from a psychiatric disorder, and the asserted possibility of needing an assessment was insufficient.
3. Case-management directions made under CPR Part 52 Practice Direction 22.6A(11) are orders of the court. Parties must comply with them or promptly seek a variation. They cannot deliberately or negligently disobey the directions and then ask the appellate court for further time at the hearing.
4. The court may resist delay in extradition proceedings, which are intended to be speedy, particularly where the proposed evidence is speculative and there are no apparent grounds capable of resisting extradition. The late application to change solicitors did not justify an adjournment either.

• High Court (Administrative Court) ([2013] EWHC 453 (Admin)): dismissed the appeal against the extradition order.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the District Judge refused an adjournment for psychiatric evidence and made the extradition order.