Pesut v Republic of Croatia

A request for extradition under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003 is valid where, read in its proper international context, it seeks the requested person’s arrest and return for prosecution. Further investigation or questioning does not necessarily alter that purpose.

Passage of time requires specific evidence of prejudice to the fairness of the trial. A state party to the ECHR is presumed to comply with its international obligations, although convincing evidence may rebut that presumption. Oppression under sections 82 and 91 requires a high threshold, assessed by an overall judgment of the person’s condition, suicide risk, available care, prison arrangements and the public interest in extradition.

Croatia requested the appellant’s extradition to face prosecution for an alleged 1991 war crime. The request was made while Croatia was subject to Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. A district judge sent the case to the Secretary of State, who ordered extradition. The appellant appealed under section 103 of the Act.

He argued that the request was investigative rather than prosecutorial, that the passage of time made extradition unjust under section 82, and that his physical and mental condition made extradition oppressive under section 91. He also sought to rely on fresh medical, prison-condition and suicide-risk evidence. The central issues were whether the request was valid and whether any statutory bar to extradition had been established.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Croatian request complied with section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003. Although it referred to an investigation and the need to obtain the appellant’s presence, its express purpose was his arrest and extradition for prosecution. Further questioning or investigative steps were not inconsistent with that purpose when the request was read in a cosmopolitan manner.

2. The passage of time did not make extradition unjust under section 82. The appellant relied on general difficulties concerning faded memories, lost witnesses, population changes and his health. Those matters lacked the required specificity. Croatia’s status as a party to the ECHR created a strong but rebuttable presumption that it would provide a fair trial under Article 6. The evidence did not approach the convincing level required to displace that presumption.

3. Oppression under sections 82 and 91 involves a less demanding standard than Article 3 of the ECHR, but a high threshold must still be met. The court had to make an overall assessment, including the appellant’s mental condition, whether it removed his capacity to resist a suicidal impulse, the likely risk of suicide, the arrangements available in Croatia, and the public interest in giving effect to extradition obligations.

4. The fresh evidence was considered. Evidence unavailable at the original hearing may be admitted where there was good reason why it was not previously adduced, subject to the court’s obligation to prevent an extradition contrary to Convention rights. The decisive question under section 104(4) was whether the evidence would have required the district judge to reach a different conclusion and order discharge.

5. The evidence showed serious medical and psychiatric needs, prison overcrowding and shortcomings in Croatian prison healthcare. However, Croatia had been alerted to the appellant’s condition, arrangements existed for communication with the prison hospital, and transfer to that hospital was available. The evidence did not establish a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment or satisfy the statutory test of oppression. The seriousness of the alleged war crime and the public interest in enabling prosecution also weighed against discharge.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appellant appealed the district judge’s decision under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003. The appeal was dismissed.
• Secretary of State: ordered extradition on 3 March 2014. No further appeal was brought against that decision.
• District Judge Snow: sent the case to the Secretary of State on 17 January 2014.