Ross Moore v Criminal Court No 4 In Malaga, Spain

In extradition proceedings, serious offending, fugitivity and the public interest may retain substantial weight despite the passage of time and the requested person’s mental-health difficulties. Article 8 and oppression arguments under section 25 require an assessment of the evidence as a whole, including the availability of appropriate custodial medical care and the evidential basis for any claimed suicide risk.

Fresh psychiatric evidence will not ordinarily justify reopening the case where it does not materially undermine the first-instance findings. A high or very high suicide risk, without evidence that the person lacks capacity to resist the impulse to commit suicide, does not satisfy the applicable test.

The appellant, a UK national, was wanted for extradition to Spain following a conviction for manslaughter and a suspended sentence activated after non-payment. The Westminster Magistrates Court ordered extradition after considering oral evidence from a psychiatrist and a detailed medical report.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers. The appellant relied on a later psychiatric report identifying increased suicide risk and argued that the first-instance court should have deferred judgment or that the fresh evidence should be admitted. The central issues were whether there was an arguable challenge under Article 8 or section 25, and whether the later evidence justified a fresh hearing.

1. Permission to appeal refused. There was no realistic prospect that the Article 8 or section 25 conclusions would be overturned, even taking the later psychiatric evidence and related documents into account.
2. The public interest in extradition remained very strong. The offence was serious, the custodial period was significant, and the appellant had left Spain as a fugitive. The passage of time did not substantially reduce that public interest. There had been no significant delay in pursuing extradition and no false sense of security.
3. The first-instance findings concerning medical care remained intact. The Spanish authorities could be relied upon to provide appropriate medical care and treatment in custody. The fact that community-based psychological interventions might be more readily available outside prison did not undermine that conclusion. The point identified in Magiera v Poland [2017] EWHC 757 (Admin) had been expressly recognised by the first-instance judge.
4. The later report’s identification of a high or very high suicide risk did not alter the result. There remained no evidence that the appellant’s mental-health condition removed his capacity to resist the impulse to commit suicide. The familiar Turner test therefore could not arguably be satisfied.
5. XY v Netherlands [2019] EWHC 64 (Admin) was materially distinguishable. Its circumstances included a false sense of security, absence of fugitivity, return to the prison where the requested person had been raped, and a failure by the foreign authorities to protect him. Those features were not present here.
6. Permission to rely on the later psychiatric report and related documents was formally refused because the evidence was incapable of being decisive.

• Westminster Magistrates Court: extradition to Spain was ordered following an oral hearing and detailed judgment.
• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal was refused on the papers and the application was renewed. Fordham J refused permission to appeal and refused permission to rely on the later psychiatric evidence.