Maria Nieves Hegazey v Concepcion Espejel Jorquera (Spain)

In an extradition appeal involving Article 8 ECHR, the appellate court must assess whether the overall proportionality decision was wrong. A first-instance judge must grapple directly with principal evidence that extradition will materially worsen a requested person’s mental health and create a substantial suicide risk, particularly in a finely balanced case. The court must apply the correct adequacy question when assessing healthcare in the requesting state. Relevant considerations may include the nature of the offending, the likely sentence in the United Kingdom, the possibility of domestic prosecution, the requested person’s family ties and ability to return after serving sentence, whether the person is a fugitive, and the age of the offending. The appeal was allowed because the Article 8 balance had not properly addressed the mental-health evidence.

The appellant, a Spanish national who had lived in the United Kingdom since 1985, appealed against District Judge Turnock’s order extraditing her to Spain to serve a five-year sentence for document offences and misappropriation of public funds committed while working at the Spanish Embassy in London.

She relied on Article 8 ECHR and section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, principally by reference to accepted mental-health problems, deterioration on extradition and suicide risk. The appeal proceeded on two Article 8 grounds and one section 25 ground. The central issue was whether the District Judge’s conclusion that extradition was proportionate was legally sustainable.

1. The appeal was allowed under section 27(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant was discharged and the extradition order was quashed under section 27(5).

2. On an Article 8 appeal, the High Court must respect factual findings unless there is a clear and obvious error, read the judgment as a whole, and determine whether the overall proportionality decision was wrong. Appellate intervention is required where the conclusion does not logically follow from the evidence or reflects a fundamental error of approach. A different appellate view of the balance is insufficient by itself.

3. The District Judge accepted that extradition would significantly worsen the appellant’s anxiety and depression and create a substantial suicide risk. In a knife-edge Article 8 case, those matters had to be addressed directly and in detail in the Article 8 balance. Reliance on the higher section 25 threshold, which asks whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive, did not cure the omission.

4. The District Judge also appeared to ask whether Spanish prison healthcare was not wholly inadequate, rather than whether it was adequate to meet the appellant’s particular needs. The court identified evidential concerns about psychiatric and psychological provision and suicide-prevention practices, although it did not need finally to determine whether those concerns rebutted the usual presumption of adequate provision in an EU or Council of Europe state.

5. Reconducting the balance, the court gave cumulative weight to the appellant’s severe mental-health risks, the non-violent financial nature of the offending, the likely sentencing position in the United Kingdom, the possibility of prosecution here, the difficulty of returning to the United Kingdom after sentence, her non-fugitive status and the age of the offending. These factors outweighed the strong public interest in extradition.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the extradition order, directed the appellant’s discharge and quashed the order for extradition.
• District Judge Turnock: on 14 June 2022, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Spain.