Boorman v Juzgado De Instruccion No.4 De Palma De Mallorca

In an extradition appeal, an adjournment requires a proper and sufficiently grounded basis. Speculation that further medical evidence, changed circumstances or alternative arrangements might emerge is insufficient, particularly where the substantive grounds are already before the court. A renewed application for permission to appeal requires a reasonably arguable ground on the legal merits. The court may reopen an appeal in exceptional circumstances to avoid real injustice, but that power does not justify routine postponement. After refusing permission, the court should not make notification directions without a clear jurisdictional basis, necessity and evidential foundation.

The claimant sought renewed permission to appeal against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Spain. The district judge had refused applications to adjourn for psychiatric evidence concerning alleged PTSD and had rejected challenges based on human rights proportionality and possible alternatives to extradition. Permission to appeal was refused on paper.

At the renewal hearing, the claimant sought an adjournment to obtain further medical notes and to explore the possible effects of the coronavirus pandemic, including video-link interviews and conditions in Spanish custody. He also sought notification directions concerning removal and applications for extensions of time. The central issues were whether the adjournment had a proper basis, whether any ground of appeal was reasonably arguable, and whether the court had jurisdiction and sufficient justification to make the requested directions.

1. Applications refused. The application for an adjournment was refused and the renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. The court adopted a robust approach to adjournment applications. The outstanding medical material was speculative and had not been shown to establish an urgent need for community treatment capable of affecting either the human-rights assessment or the statutory extradition bar. The available medical records had not been placed before the court, and the substantive grounds depended on obtaining further evidence.
3. The suggested pandemic-related developments did not justify an adjournment. The possibility that the Spanish authorities might accept a video-link interview or reconsider their position was wholly speculative. The communications before the district judge and the latest request for surrender supported the conclusion that extradition remained urgently required.
4. There was no reasonably arguable ground that the district judge had erred in refusing an adjournment, in assessing the potential significance of PTSD evidence, or in carrying out the article 8 proportionality assessment. The district judge had recognised the consequences of extradition and conducted the required balancing exercise. The balance fell heavily in favour of extradition.
5. The court noted the power under Criminal Procedure Rules rule 50.27 to reopen an appeal where an exceptional new development made that necessary to avoid real injustice. That exceptional power did not provide a basis for the present adjournment.
6. The requested directions requiring 48 hours’ notice of removal and notice of applications to extend time were refused. The court was not satisfied that it had jurisdiction to make them after dismissing the permission application. In any event, the directions were neither necessary nor appropriate on the evidence. Any future human-rights breach could be raised before a court with jurisdiction to address it.

• District judge: On 20 December 2019, ordered the claimant’s extradition to Spain and refused applications to adjourn for medical evidence.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 3 March 2020. On renewal, the adjournment application was refused and permission to appeal was dismissed.