Jason Platt v The High Court of the Republic of Ireland

On an appeal against extradition, the High Court’s role is one of review. It must decide whether the requested person has shown that the extradition judge ought to have reached a different decision and that discharge would then have been required.

Findings of fact and evaluative judgments on Article 8 proportionality must ordinarily be respected, particularly where the extradition judge heard the evidence. There is no additional test of exceptionality. The court must balance the seriousness of the interference with private and family life against the public interest in extradition. Serious or unusual hardship does not itself make extradition disproportionate.

The appellant appealed under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by District Judge Sternberg at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 30 June 2023 for his extradition to Ireland.

He faced eight charges arising from alleged dishonest and misleading evidence in a personal injury claim. The appeal was confined to Article 8 ECHR. He argued that his partner was virtually certain to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and that public mental health services might fail to prevent suicide or serious self-harm. He also argued that the District Judge had failed to consider whether the hardship was exceptional.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to establish under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 that the District Judge ought to have decided any relevant question differently or that discharge would then have been required. The applications to adduce fresh evidence were refused.
2. The issue whether the appellant’s partner would engage with community mental health services, and whether detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 would follow, was a factual and evaluative issue for the District Judge. The evidence was equivocal. The District Judge was not required to quantify the risk as probable or highly probable, and the High Court was not entitled to second-guess his assessment by selecting extracts from the evidence.
3. The District Judge was entitled to find that mental health support would be available and to take account of measures capable of being arranged in anticipation of the decision being communicated. The expert evidence supported the availability of suicide-risk assessment, monitoring, mitigation and, if necessary, admission. The complaint that an interim risk had been overlooked was therefore unfounded.
4. The later materials concerning the Right Care, Right Person arrangements did not establish that the District Judge’s factual basis was wrong. The earlier materials could reasonably have been obtained for the magistrates’ hearing and, in any event, would not probably have altered the decision. The later materials were concerning but lacked the cogency, contemporaneity and coverage necessary to establish an inadequate response in the appellant’s locality.
5. There was no separate exceptionality test under Article 8. HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa and Norris v United States of America (No 2) required the seriousness of the interference to be balanced against the public interest in extradition. The District Judge had undertaken that assessment. The alleged offences were serious and engaged a powerful public interest in trial and in honouring extradition arrangements. The High Court could not say that the proportionality decision was wrong under the approach in In re B (a child), Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski and Love v Government of the United States of America.
6. The judgment was circulated in draft so that appropriate support could be arranged for the appellant and his partner when it was handed down.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Sternberg ordered the appellant’s extradition to Ireland on 30 June 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003.