Melia v Dublin High Court Ireland

In an extradition case involving serious ill health, the relevant question is whether removal itself creates a real likelihood that the requested person’s condition will deteriorate to a life-threatening extent. The court should consider the protective measures available during removal and in the receiving state, including appropriate transport, medical care and assistance from carers. The possibility of deterioration after arrival, including the consequences of imprisonment, is principally a matter for the requesting state where adequate medical care is available. Removal will be barred as oppressive only where the evidence establishes the necessary life-threatening risk despite those safeguards.

The claimant faced a retrial in Ireland on charges of possession of drugs with intent to supply. His earlier conviction and sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment had been quashed on appeal, and a retrial had been repeatedly adjourned. After leaving Ireland, he was arrested in the United Kingdom pursuant to an arrest warrant.

He relied on severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, bronchiectasis, other medical conditions and dependence on family carers. He sought an adjournment to obtain an updated medical report, contending that forced removal would cause a life-threatening deterioration. The central issue was whether removal would be so oppressive as to bar his return to Ireland.

1. The application for an adjournment was refused and the appeal was dismissed. The existing medical evidence, including a recent email from Professor Brown, was sufficient for the court to determine the issue.
2. The material question was whether the act of removal itself created a real likelihood that the claimant’s condition would deteriorate to such an extent as to threaten his life. The court accepted that the approach should be broadly similar to that used in cases concerning the risk of suicide.
3. The possibility that the claimant would lose the support of his partner and face a substantial prison sentence if convicted did not, without more, make removal oppressive. The Irish authorities had indicated that they could provide the necessary medical care, and matters arising after arrival were for those authorities.
4. Reasonable steps had to be taken to reduce the stress of removal and provide proper care. Those steps could include using a boat rather than an aeroplane if medically appropriate, allowing the claimant’s partner to accompany him, and ensuring suitable care during the journey and on arrival.
5. Having regard to those safeguards, the evidence did not establish that removal would constitute a bar. The claimant’s history of remaining in Ireland while aware of the pending retrial, followed by his departure when adjournments ceased, was also relevant to the overall assessment.

The judgment concerned an appeal from a District Judge’s decision on the claimant’s return to Ireland. The judgment does not state the citation of the District Judge’s decision.