ALAN COGAN v THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALMERÍA

In extradition cases involving suicide risk, a high threshold must be met before surrender is unjust or oppressive. The court must assess the requested person’s mental condition, the substantiality of the suicide risk, and the measures available at each stage: detention in the United Kingdom, transfer, and detention in the requesting state. For an EU requesting state, the court ordinarily presumes that appropriate safeguards will be provided unless strong evidence shows otherwise. A specific concern requires a strong evidential foundation; it cannot itself justify a demand for detailed assurances. The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that Spain would fail to protect the appellant adequately.

The appellant appealed under section 26(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 11 November 2014 directing his extradition to Spain to face trial for rape and attempted murder.

He relied on section 25 of the Act, arguing that extradition would be unjust or oppressive because severe depression and psychosis created a risk of suicide. He relied particularly on the availability of psychiatric care, communication with medical staff, and separation from his wife. The central issue was whether the evidence displaced the presumption that Spain, as an EU requesting state, would discharge its responsibilities to protect him.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the District Judge’s conclusion that the high threshold under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 had not been reached.
2. The court adopted the summary of principles in Wolkowicz v Polish Judicial Authority [2013] EWHC 102 (Admin). The court must form an overall judgment on the particular facts; the requested person’s mental condition must be linked to a substantial risk of suicide; and the court must consider whether the risk remains sufficiently great whatever protective steps are taken. It must also examine the arrangements available in the requesting state, while recognising the public interest in fulfilling treaty obligations.
3. Preventative measures must be considered at three stages: United Kingdom custody, transfer to the requesting state, and reception in the requesting state. In the EU context, the receiving state will ordinarily be presumed to discharge its responsibilities unless strong evidence calls its ability into question or identifies a specific matter with a strong evidential foundation.
4. The appellant’s concerns about interpreters and psychiatric placement did not satisfy that standard. His past experience involved one doctor who did not speak English, but he had not sought assistance with communication. There was no evidential basis for concluding that the feared difficulties would occur. Nor was detailed information about beds, timing, or the management of proceedings in a psychiatric hospital required.
5. The information supplied by Spain materially addressed the concerns. It identified suicide-prevention procedures, medical and psychiatric services, access to outside and prison psychiatric hospitals, communication mechanisms for non-Spanish-speaking prisoners, and family contact. The Spanish authorities already had translated medical reports, and the court directed that Dr Attard’s report and relevant medical records should also be provided.
6. The evidence did not establish that Spain would fail to discharge its obligations or that the appellant’s condition required particular assurances. The conclusion reached below was correct on the material then available and was confirmed by the further information obtained on appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extradition order was dismissed. The court confirmed the decision below after considering further information about psychiatric care and interpretation in Spain.