Sekrieru v The Government of Azerbaijan

On an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the High Court may allow an appeal based on fresh evidence only where the evidence was unavailable at the extradition hearing, would have changed the decision, and would have required discharge.

For an Article 3 extradition challenge, the requested person must establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. The court must then assess whether reliable and sufficiently specific assurances remove that risk. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must address the individual circumstances and proposed place of detention.

An Article 6 objection requires substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose the person to a flagrant denial of justice. The appeal was dismissed because neither ground, nor the fresh evidence, was capable of requiring a different result.

The appellant, a Moldovan citizen, appealed with limited leave against District Judge Baraitser’s decision of 16 March 2020 ordering his extradition to Azerbaijan to face charges of theft and illegal interference with a computer system. The Secretary of State ordered extradition on 12 May 2020.

The appeal concerned alleged risks under Articles 3 and 6 of the ECHR, together with fresh evidence from a co-accused who had been extradited to Azerbaijan, convicted and returned to Moldova. The central issues were whether the District Judge had applied the correct tests, whether assurances from Azerbaijan could be relied upon, and whether the fresh evidence satisfied section 104(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had carefully assessed the evidence and correctly applied the relevant legal principles.
2. Under section 104 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court first examines whether the decision below was wrong on the material then available. Fresh evidence is considered only if the original grounds fail, and only if it was unavailable at the hearing, would have altered the decision, and would have required discharge.
3. For Article 3, the question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose the appellant to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The District Judge was entitled to find that the evidence concerning the proposed detention facilities did not establish that risk.
4. The District Judge was also entitled, in the alternative, to rely on detailed assurances concerning accommodation, personal space, sanitation, medical treatment, exercise, consular access and legal representation. The assurances had been given in good faith, had a sound objective basis, and were capable of verification. They therefore satisfied the Zagrean criteria.
5. For Article 6, the applicable threshold was a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. Concerns about the Azerbaijani judicial system, including conviction rates and the evidence of Witness X, did not establish that stringent threshold. The assurances concerning consular access and legal representation were relevant, and the District Judge was entitled to accept them.
6. The co-accused’s statement was not capable of being decisive. It was unsupported by medical or consular evidence, was inconsistent with his conduct and subsequent procedural history, and did not establish that the District Judge would have reached a different conclusion. Lord Justice Bean agreed with McGowan J.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Baraitser ordered extradition on 16 March 2020. The Secretary of State ordered extradition on 12 May 2020. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 26 March 2021.