Guzeloglu v Government of Republic of Turkey

On an extradition appeal relying on fresh evidence, the High Court may admit evidence unavailable at the original hearing where the statutory conditions are met. The court must then decide whether the evidence would have required the requested person’s discharge.

The threshold under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003 is high. The court makes an overall judgment, assesses the magnitude of any suicide risk, considers whether the person retains capacity to resist the impulse, and examines whether reasonable preventative and medical arrangements exist in the requesting state. Treaty obligations and the public interest in extradition remain important. Generalised evidence of poor prison conditions will not necessarily establish oppression or a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment.

The appellant had been convicted in Turkey of falsifying official documents and extradition had been ordered after the District Judge resolved the statutory issues in favour of the requesting state. The appellant appealed, relying on fresh medical, psychiatric and country evidence concerning his physical and mental health and Turkish prison conditions.

The appeal concerned whether the fresh evidence satisfied section 104(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, and, if so, whether it showed that extradition would be unjust or oppressive under section 91 or would expose the appellant to a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment under section 87.

1. Fresh evidence. Section 104(4) permitted the appeal only if a new issue or previously unavailable evidence was raised, it would have led the District Judge to decide a question differently, and that decision would have required discharge. The court admitted evidence concerning inadequate representation and the new psychiatric issue. It refused to admit, or gave little weight to, material concerning historical matters which had already been considered. The strict Ladd v Marshall test did not apply with full rigour, but good reason was required for evidence that could reasonably have been adduced earlier.
2. Section 91. The court applied the approach stated in Turner v Government of the USA [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin) and approved and adopted in Wolkowicz and Biskup v Polish Judicial Authority; Rizleriene v Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania [2013] EWHC 102 (Admin). The court must make an overall judgment. The threshold is high. It must assess the mental condition, its link to a suicide attempt, whether the person can resist the impulse, the magnitude of the risk notwithstanding preventative measures, and the adequacy of arrangements in the requesting state. The public interest in fulfilling treaty obligations is material.
3. The psychiatric evidence did not reliably establish a high risk of suicide. It did not sufficiently investigate the appellant’s history, the late attribution of his symptoms to extradition, or the origins of his suicidal ideas. The evidence also showed that he retained free will to resist those thoughts.
4. The country evidence was generalised and inconsistent. Against it stood specific evidence from Turkey concerning medical treatment, psychiatric care, suicide monitoring, medicines and health assessments on arrival. The requesting state need not prove that suicide would be prevented in every case; it had to show reasonable preventative measures having regard to the magnitude of the risk. The evidence did not establish oppression under section 91 or a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment under section 87.
5. The fresh evidence would not have caused the District Judge to decide the section 87 or section 91 questions differently. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal against the order for extradition was dismissed. The District Judge had sent the case to the Secretary of State under section 87(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, and the Secretary of State subsequently ordered extradition.