Fletcher v Government of India

Under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must make an overall evaluative assessment of whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive. In suicide-risk cases, it must consider the risk of completed suicide, whether a mental disorder removes the person’s capacity to resist the suicidal impulse, and whether preventive measures in the requesting state would reduce the risk below the high threshold for oppression.

The inquiry is not a rigid sequential checklist. Even adequate arrangements may be insufficient where the risk remains exceptionally high. Assurances must address realistic methods of suicide and provide sufficiently detailed information about supervision and psychiatric care. The public interest in honouring treaty obligations is an important consideration.

The appellant challenged the decision of District Judge Zani, who had found no bar to extradition and sent the case to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State subsequently ordered extradition under section 93(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.

Permission to appeal was granted on the issue whether, in light of the appellant’s mental health and suicide risk, extradition would be unjust or oppressive under section 91. The appellant relied on uncontested psychiatric evidence and challenged the adequacy of assurances concerning prison conditions, supervision and treatment in India. The central issue was whether the risk of completed suicide, notwithstanding the proposed preventive measures, satisfied the statutory threshold.

1. Appeal allowed. The appellant’s physical or mental condition was such that extradition would be oppressive under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The court endorsed the composite approach stated in Farookh v Germany [2020] EWHC 3143 (Admin). The court must assess the risk of completed suicide, whether the person’s mental condition removes the capacity to resist the suicidal impulse, and whether that risk remains sufficiently great even if appropriate preventive arrangements are made.
3. The inquiry is evaluative and fact-sensitive. The public interest in giving effect to treaty obligations must be taken into account. A history of recent genuine attempts is relevant, but it is only one factor in the expert assessment of future risk.
4. The uncontested evidence established a very high risk of completed suicide arising from the combined effect of severe depression, personality disorder, previous self-harm and suicidal acts, and daily suicidal thoughts, intentions and specific plans. The personality disorder created an element of impulsivity which the appellant could not control, satisfying the capacity requirement identified in Turner v Government of the USA [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin).
5. The assurances concerning the safe barrack did not address ligature points or all realistic methods of suicide. The information about supervision did not explain the proximity and operation of supervisory staff, the frequency of observations, staffing levels, daytime supervision, or access to objects capable of facilitating self-harm. The absence of on-site specialist psychiatric staff was not necessarily decisive, but the lack of detail about visits from IGMC Shimla made the available care difficult to assess.
6. The assurances therefore did not significantly reduce the very high risk of completed suicide. The evidence before the High Court differed materially from that before the District Judge, and the appeal succeeded.

1. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani concluded on 13 January 2020 that there were no bars to extradition and sent the case to the Secretary of State.
2. Secretary of State: Extradition was ordered on 8 March 2020 under section 93(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted on the section 91 issue. The appeal was allowed.