Cash v Court of First Instance, Strasbourg, France

Under Extradition Act 2003, s 25, extradition is unjust or oppressive where the requested person is unfit to stand trial because of serious mental illness and the prognosis for recovery is uncertain. In such circumstances, discharge is appropriate rather than an adjournment where recovery cannot be expected within a reasonably ascertainable period.

The general presumption that another EU Member State will provide adequate healthcare may be displaced by the nature and seriousness of the condition. Specific evidence may then be required concerning treatment and management in the requesting state.

The appellant was wanted in France to face charges of fraud, attempted fraud and employing a minor obliged to attend school. District Judge Grant ordered extradition on 15 March 2017, rejecting a contention that extradition was barred by s 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.

After the order, the appellant’s mental health deteriorated. Updated psychiatric evidence indicated serious paranoid schizophrenia, persistent suicide risk, and continuing unfitness to stand trial, with an uncertain prognosis. The appeal concerned whether the fresh evidence established that extradition would be unjust or oppressive and whether the case should be discharged or adjourned.

1. The appeal was allowed and the extradition order was quashed. The appellant was discharged because extradition would be both unjust and oppressive under s 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Under s 27, where fresh evidence is relied upon, the High Court may make its own evaluation of the evidence in deciding whether the statutory health bar applies. The court was entitled to assess the appellant’s current condition and prognosis rather than being confined to reviewing the district judge’s earlier assessment.
3. The appellant was seriously mentally ill, currently unfit to stand trial under the Pritchard criteria, and had no sufficiently certain prospect of recovery. Applying the approach in Government of South Africa v Dewani (No 2) [2014] 1 WLR 3220, extradition in those circumstances would be unjust and oppressive.
4. The general presumption that an EU Member State can provide adequate healthcare did not resolve this case. The nature of the appellant’s illness required specific evidence addressing how his condition, treatment and suicide risk would be managed in France. No adequate information had been produced, and a further adjournment was unrealistic.
5. Given the uncertain prognosis, the appropriate order was discharge under s 25 rather than an adjournment. If the appellant later recovered, the issuing judicial authority could commence fresh extradition proceedings.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge Grant on 15 March 2017 was allowed. The order was quashed and the appellant was discharged.
• Permission and adjournment — Whipple J granted permission to appeal on 26 May 2017. Goss J adjourned the appeal on 25 July 2017 for updated medical evidence.