Koc v Turkish Judicial Authority

In an extradition appeal, deliberate absence from trial requires proof that the requested person deliberately failed to attend the trial events leading to conviction. A prior exemption from the obligation to attend later hearings does not itself waive notification rights or create an enhanced duty to monitor proceedings.

For passage-of-time challenges, seriousness is a significant factor but is not an automatic bar. The court must evaluate all relevant features, including culpable delay, non-fugitivity, changes in circumstances and family hardship. Article 8 requires consideration of every affected family member and the best interests of each child. A separate mental-health challenge requires evidence meeting the demanding statutory threshold.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Turkey to serve a sentence imposed following his conviction in absentia for robbery and kidnapping. District Judge Zani sent the case to the Home Secretary on 28 January 2020, and the Home Secretary ordered extradition on 25 March 2020.

Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds. Fresh evidence was admitted. The central issues were whether the appellant had deliberately absented himself from his trial, whether extradition was barred by the passage of time, whether it would breach Article 8 ECHR, and whether his mental condition made extradition unjust or oppressive.

Appeal allowed. The appellant was discharged and the extradition order was quashed.

1. Deliberate absence. Under the Extradition Act 2003, the respondent bore the burden of proving deliberate absence to the criminal standard. The relevant trial was the event, or events, with a scheduled time and place which led to conviction, rather than the wider prosecution process. The standards applied to the later 2008 hearings. There had been no summons or actual information about those hearings, no third-party transmission of that information, no manifest lack of diligence, and no unequivocal waiver attended by minimum safeguards. The appellant’s Article 226 preference removed the obligation to attend, but did not waive notification or attendance rights and did not create an enhanced duty to keep himself informed.
2. Passage of time. The appellant was not shown to have been a fugitive. He had breached no restriction, notification requirement or attendance obligation when he left Turkey. The possibility that departure might cause a future breach was insufficient. Under section 82, seriousness and the custodial term were highly significant but operated as evaluative factors, not as an automatic bar. The court identified at least eight years of culpable delay within eleven unexplained calendar years. That delay, the appellant’s non-fugitivity, the long passage of time, and the severe consequences for his family made extradition oppressive.
3. Article 8. The court had to consider the Convention rights of each affected family member, treating the best interests of each child as a primary consideration. Although the public interest in extradition remained strong, it was reduced by the age of the offending, culpable delay and non-fugitivity. The impact on the appellant’s wife and three children made extradition incompatible with their Article 8 rights.
4. Mental health. The section 91 ground failed. The evidence did not establish the required real and proven risk of significant and permanent deterioration in a particularly serious mental illness. The prison assurances and evidence of Turkish medical arrangements were legally adequate.

There was no order for costs of the appeal. The appellant’s costs before the Magistrates’ Court were ordered to be paid from central funds.

• High Court (Administrative Court). The appeal was allowed. The appellant was discharged and the extradition order was quashed: [2021] EWHC 1234 (Admin) .
• Magistrates’ Court. District Judge Zani sent the case to the Home Secretary on 28 January 2020. The Home Secretary ordered extradition on 25 March 2020.