Jess v High Court, Ireland

On an appeal against an extradition order, the court must determine whether the lower court’s Article 8 conclusion was wrong. An Article 8 case based on the likely consequences of detention after extradition is difficult where it is assumed that the requesting state’s courts will act compatibly with Convention rights. Evidence alleging inadequate medical or rehabilitative care must address the facilities and care available in the requesting state; a general comparison with community treatment is insufficient. Time spent on remand may reduce the weight of the public interest in extradition, but that weight remains substantial where the requesting authorities confirm that extradition is still sought. The court dismissed the appeal.

This was an appeal against an extradition order made by District Judge Sarah-Jane Griffiths on 13 November 2019 in respect of an accusation warrant issued by the Irish authorities. The appellant was wanted in connection with an alleged attempted robbery. He relied on the effects of a traumatic brain injury, arguing that extradition would be oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention.

Permission to appeal was refused on the section 25 ground but granted on Article 8. The appeal concerned the likely effect of detention in Ireland on the appellant’s rehabilitation and the significance of the approximately 20 months already spent on remand. The central issue was whether the District Judge’s proportionality conclusion was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court applied the approach identified by Lord Neuberger in In Re B [2013] 1 WLR 1911: the question was whether the District Judge’s conclusion on Article 8 was wrong.
2. The Article 8 case was based on the possibility that detention in Ireland would reduce the appellant’s access to rehabilitative care. It was not said that extradition itself, or removal from the United Kingdom, would constitute the interference. The appellant accepted that the Irish courts would be assumed to act consistently with Convention rights. That assumption made it difficult to identify an unlawful interference requiring justification.
3. The evidence did not establish that appropriate medical care would be unavailable in Ireland. The expert evidence stated only that rehabilitative opportunities were likely to be more limited in prison than in the community. It did not identify the specific therapy required or address the facilities and care available in Irish prisons. The District Judge was therefore entitled to conclude that appropriate care would be provided, although the level of care might be lower than in the community.
4. Time spent on remand could, when considered with Article 26 of the Framework Decision, reduce the weight of the public interest in extradition if it were likely to equal or exceed any eventual sentence. However, the Irish authorities had expressly confirmed that extradition remained sought after being given detailed information about the appellant’s circumstances. The public interest therefore retained substantial weight. The decision in Kalinauskas v Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania [2020] EWHC 191 (Admin), where immediate release was considered inevitable, did not assist on these materially different facts.
5. Overall, the evidence of relevant Article 8 interference was weak and the consequence of extradition would not be disproportionate.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the extradition order dismissed.
2. District Judge: Extradition order made on 13 November 2019. The section 25 and Article 8 arguments were rejected.
3. Permission stage: Chamberlain J refused permission on the papers. Steyn J refused permission on section 25 but granted permission on Article 8.