ANTHONY EDWARD GEORGE CATTLE v SPANISH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

For section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, extradition may be unjust or oppressive only where the requested person’s mental condition meets the statutory test. A risk of suicide does not establish oppression unless the condition removes the person’s capacity to resist the impulse to commit suicide. In the absence of direct evidence, the court may rely on a presumption that suitable arrangements will be made in the requesting state, unless rebutted. Under Article 8 ECHR, the court must conduct an overall proportionality evaluation, weighing the private and family-life factors against the public interest in extradition.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Spain to stand trial for offences concerning membership of an international criminal organisation and the transportation and distribution of cannabis. A District Judge ordered extradition on 20 August 2021. Sir Ross Cranston refused permission on the papers, finding no reasonably arguable ground of appeal.

On a renewed application, the appellant argued that his mental health made extradition unjust or oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, and that extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR. He also sought a short extension of the period for extradition so that he could receive a scheduled Covid vaccination.

1. Section 25. The appeal ground based on mental health was not reasonably arguable. The District Judge was entitled to find that the appellant was not unfit to stand trial and that there was no basis for concluding that any attempted suicide would result from his mental condition rather than a voluntary act. The principle identified in Turner v USA was therefore not satisfied.
2. Where there is no direct evidence of arrangements in the requesting state for dealing with mental illness and suicide risk, presumptions may operate unless rebutted by evidence. The District Judge was entitled to rely on a presumption that suitable arrangements would be made in the prison system of the requesting state.
3. Article 8. The District Judge had carried out the necessary balance-sheet exercise. The appellant’s citizenship, good character, mental ill-health, suicide risk, family responsibilities, the age of the alleged offence and possible loss of evidence were weighed against the strong public interest in extradition. The conclusion that the public-interest factors decisively outweighed the matters relied upon by the appellant was plainly correct. The approach in Love v United States, including the court stepping back to consider the overall evaluation, did not make a different outcome realistically arguable.
4. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The court directed that the 10-day extradition period should run from 16 February 2022, with liberty to the respondent to apply in writing and on notice to vary or discharge that arrangement.

• High Court (Administrative Court): on 1 February 2022, the renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
• District Judge Clews: ordered extradition on 20 August 2021.
• Sir Ross Cranston: on 9 December 2021, refused permission on the papers, concluding that there was no reasonably arguable ground of appeal.