Hamdi Cherif v Government of Norway

In an extradition case, fresh medical evidence must satisfy the established criteria for admission on appeal, including decisiveness and the inability, despite reasonable diligence, to obtain it earlier. Evidence showing that further medical checks are advisable before travel does not establish that extradition is oppressive or engage Article 8 where adequate healthcare is presumed to be available in the requesting state. An adjournment is unnecessary where the proposed testing will form part of the arrangements for safe removal. Public authorities arranging extradition must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 and must not transport a person if doing so would seriously endanger life or health.

The Government of Norway sought the applicant’s extradition to serve a sentence of one year and four months’ imprisonment. A district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court refused arguments based on Article 8 and section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003, refused an adjournment for further medical evidence, and sent the case to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State ordered extradition.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers. On renewal, the applicant relied on further cardiological evidence and sought an adjournment for additional tests. The central issues were whether the fresh evidence should be admitted and whether the medical material justified an appeal or adjournment.

1. The renewed applications were refused. The applicant did not challenge the district judge’s reasoning and relied on fresh evidence concerning his heart condition.

2. The further material did not satisfy the Fenyvesi test. It was not decisive and, with reasonable diligence, definitive evidence could have been obtained before the extradition hearing. At its highest, it showed that further checks were advisable before the applicant flew.

3. The evidence did not suggest that return to Norway would be oppressive because of the applicant’s physical or mental health under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003. The injustice limb did not arise because the extradition was sought to serve a sentence, applying Government of South Africa v Dewani. The presumption that Norway could provide adequate healthcare during incarceration was not displaced. The new material therefore provided no basis for an Article 8 appeal.

4. An adjournment for further testing would serve no useful purpose. The applicant had had ample time to obtain medical evidence, and the National Extradition Unit would assess whether he was fit to fly and consider alternative sea or land travel if necessary. As a public authority, it was bound by the Human Rights Act 1998 and could not lawfully fly him if this would place his life or health in serious jeopardy.

5. The applications were refused. The order would provide, subject to consent if necessary, for the applicant’s medical records to be disclosed to the National Extradition Unit, the CPS and the Government of Norway so that appropriate arrangements, including further testing, could be made.

The district judge’s order at Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 10 May 2022 sent the case to the Secretary of State and refused an adjournment. The Secretary of State ordered extradition on 15 July 2022. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Heather Williams J on 29 November 2022. The High Court refused the renewed application for permission to appeal and the related adjournment application.