Lloyd v Government of Canada

On an extradition appeal, the appellate court must decide whether the district judge’s decision was wrong. It must respect factual findings, particularly findings based on oral evidence, and must not rehear the evidence or reweigh the case generally. Whether extradition is oppressive because of a person’s physical or mental condition is intensely fact-specific. In suicide-risk cases, the court considers the person’s capacity to resist the risk and the arrangements available in the requesting state. An Article 3 bar requires substantial grounds for believing that extradition creates a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

The appellant appealed against the Senior District Judge’s decision to send her case to the Secretary of State for consideration, followed by the Secretary of State’s order for her extradition to Canada. She was wanted to stand trial in Alberta for alleged fraud. The appeal initially included an Article 8 ground, but that ground was abandoned.

The remaining issues were whether extradition would be oppressive under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003 because of the appellant’s physical and mental condition, and whether detention in Canada would create a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR under section 87.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant was required to be extradited to Canada.
2. Under section 104 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appeal was not a rehearing. Following Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin), the court had to decide whether the Senior District Judge’s decision was wrong and ordinarily respect her factual findings.
3. The Senior District Judge was entitled to reject the appellant’s evidence and supporting evidence as dishonest or exaggerated. The appellate court therefore accepted the findings on the extent of her physical and mental disability.
4. Under section 91, oppression required a careful, fact-specific assessment of the risk and danger involved in extradition. The evidence did not show that the appellant lacked capacity to resist suicide, that suicidal ideation had intensified materially, or that her conditions were severe. Canadian detention arrangements provided adequate healthcare. Extradition was not oppressive.
5. For Article 3, there had to be substantial grounds for believing that detention created a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Senior District Judge was entitled to find that the relevant prisons were not overcrowded, that adequate healthcare and suicide safeguards were available, and that the appellant would probably be held in medium or low security. It was unnecessary to examine maximum-security conditions.
6. The application for anonymity was refused. The medical information did not justify derogation from open justice.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Lloyd v Government of Canada [2020] EWHC 2832 (Admin) dismissed the appeal and ordered extradition to Canada.
• Senior District Judge: On 26 April 2019, the case was sent to the Secretary of State for consideration. Extradition was ordered on 24 June 2019.