Farookh v Judge of the Saarbrucken Regional Court (Germany)

In extradition cases involving suicide risk, the court must make an overall judgment and apply the high threshold under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. The question is whether, even if the requesting state makes appropriate arrangements and discharges its responsibilities, the risk of successful suicide remains sufficiently great to make extradition oppressive. Proper prison and medical arrangements do not necessarily answer that question. The assessment focuses on the outcome for risk, not merely on whether the requesting authorities will perform their duties. Unchallenged expert evidence on the risk of suicide cannot ordinarily be rejected on factual grounds that were not put to the expert. Where section 25 is established on the evidence, the related Article 8 claim will also succeed.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Germany in respect of alleged violent offences committed when he was aged 18. A District Judge ordered extradition after considering section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On appeal, the appellant relied on fresh psychiatric evidence concerning severe PTSD, depression, suicidal behaviour and the risk that extradition would lead to a successful suicide attempt. The central issues were whether the District Judge had lawfully assessed the evidence, whether Germany’s ability to provide appropriate custodial and medical arrangements answered the suicide-risk question, and whether extradition would be oppressive or disproportionate.

1. Appeal allowed. The District Judge’s decision was not capable of withstanding scrutiny on the section 25 issue. The appellant was discharged. The Article 8 ground also succeeded.
2. The court applied the seven Turner propositions, treated in Polish Judicial Authority v Wolkowicz as authoritative guidance. The court must make an overall judgment, apply a high threshold, assess whether the mental condition removes the capacity to resist the suicidal impulse, evaluate the risk whatever steps are taken, consider prison arrangements in the requesting state, and bear in mind the public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations.
3. The proposition that the requesting state will ordinarily discharge its responsibilities does not provide a complete answer. The court must still ask whether, notwithstanding appropriate arrangements and the discharge of those responsibilities, the risk of successful suicide remains sufficiently great to make extradition oppressive. The court relied on Jansons v Latvia, which authoritatively resolved the relationship between these considerations.
4. The District Judge had treated the appellant’s past incidents and future risk as doubtful, although the appellant and Dr Anderson had not been challenged on the relevant evidence. The District Judge could not sustainably reject the evidence on the basis of matters such as the absence of hospitalisation, resuscitation or detailed injury evidence when those matters had not been put to the expert.
5. Applying the evidence afresh, the appellant’s mental condition was linked to a risk of suicide and removed his capacity to resist the suicidal impulse. Even assuming that German authorities would make appropriate arrangements, the risk of successful suicide remained sufficiently great to satisfy the high threshold under section 25. The issues under section 25 and Article 8 were closely linked, and the successful section 25 ground necessarily established the Article 8 claim on these facts.

• Administrative Court: The appeal from the District Judge’s extradition order of 21 October 2019 was allowed. The appellant succeeded under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8, and was discharged.