CECIL STEVEN HEILLIGGER v GOVERNMENT OF SINT MAARTEN

[2023] EWHC 422 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2023] EWHC 422 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
28 February 2023
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative law Extradition Human rights
Keywords
extradition offences extra-territorial jurisdiction extradition assurances Articles 2 and 3 ECHR high-risk prisoner legal custody Sint Maarten
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

For extradition purposes, the statutory requirement for extra-territorial conduct is satisfied where the conduct is an offence under United Kingdom law by virtue of an applicable extra-territorial jurisdiction provision. It is unnecessary to resolve a wider question about the meaning of corresponding circumstances.

Extradition assurances must be assessed realistically and in their legal and practical context. They may adequately address a recognised risk under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR where the requesting territory has effective arrangements, supported by relevant authorities, to protect the requested person.

An order for extradition to a territory concerns legal custody and jurisdiction, not necessarily the physical location of detention or trial. Physical transfer elsewhere within the same state may be lawful where the requesting territory’s courts retain jurisdiction and Convention standards apply.

Factual background

The applicant challenged decisions arising from a request for his extradition to Sint Maarten. The Chief Magistrate rejected his objections and sent the case to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State ordered extradition on 9 December 2021.

Three grounds remained before the Administrative Court. The first concerned whether the alleged conduct constituted extradition offences, including conduct occurring in the French part of Saint Martin. The second concerned the alleged real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. The fifth concerned whether extradition could lawfully be ordered to Sint Maarten when the applicant might initially be detained in the European Netherlands.

Held

Permission to appeal was refused. None of the grounds advanced was reasonably arguable.

  1. Extradition offences. For offences involving shootings in the French part of Saint Martin, the conditions in section 137(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 were satisfied. Section 4(1) of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 applied to acts done in France, a convention country, which would constitute murder or attempted murder if done in England and Wales. It was therefore unnecessary to decide whether section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 extended to attempted murder, or to construe the phrase corresponding circumstances more broadly.
  2. In relation to the alleged abduction, the evidence indicated that the search for the intended victim covered both parts of the island. The respondents therefore did not rely on an unduly broad version of the intended-effects principle in Belgium v Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67; [2006] 2 AC 1.
  3. Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. The court applied the approach to assurances stated in Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1. Read fairly and in context, the assurances from the requesting authorities addressed detention, transport, trial security and release. The relevant authorities had an established procedure for high-risk prisoners, and there was no evidence that it would fail. The material therefore established no real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 or 3.
  4. Place of detention. Section 93(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 distinguishes legality from logistics. An order for extradition to the requested territory authorises surrender into the legal custody of that territory’s judicial authorities. It does not require every stage of detention or trial to occur physically within that territory. Detention in the European Netherlands was not unlawful because the Sint Maarten courts retained jurisdiction, the Netherlands and Sint Maarten formed part of the same state, and the ECHR applied.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  1. Chief Magistrate. On 1 November 2021, the Chief Magistrate dismissed the applicant’s objections and sent the case to the Secretary of State.
  2. Secretary of State for the Home Department. On 9 December 2021, the Secretary of State ordered extradition to Sint Maarten.
  3. High Court (Administrative Court). Permission to appeal was refused. The court agreed with the earlier refusal of permission by Heather Williams J and held that none of the remaining grounds was reasonably arguable.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.