Sean McDwyer v Zadar Municipal Court (Croatia)

For section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 to prevent extradition on mental-health grounds, the court must assess the risk in the round. The relevant question is whether the requested person is likely to act on suicidal thoughts with sufficient determination that appropriate protective measures would not prevent suicide. A high threshold applies. The availability of suitable treatment and safeguards in the requesting state is central. Mental-health difficulties may also inform the Article 8 proportionality assessment, but their weight is limited where they do not independently satisfy section 25. Delay may be relevant even when non-culpable, although its weight depends on responsibility for the delay, its duration and any material change in circumstances.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Snow’s order of 9 March 2023 for his extradition to Croatia on an accusation warrant concerning alleged drug-supply offences. Two grounds remained. First, he argued that his mental condition and history of suicidal behaviour made extradition unjust or oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. Secondly, he argued that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 rights, particularly because of delay, his mental health, his relationship with his son and the consequences for his family.

A ground based on prison conditions and Article 3 was abandoned. The central issues were whether the evidence established an oppressive risk of suicide and whether the further evidence altered the proportionality balance.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Section 25. The court applied the approach in Polish Judicial Authority v Wolkowicz [2013] EWHC 102 (Admin), approving the summary in Turner v Government of the USA [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin). The court had to make an overall judgment, apply a high threshold, assess whether the mental condition was linked to a substantial risk of suicide, consider whether the person could resist the impulse, examine safeguards during custody and transfer and in the requesting state, and give weight to the public interest in extradition obligations.
2. The relevant risk was not merely that extradition would produce suicidal thoughts. It was the risk that the appellant would be so overborne by those thoughts that he would act with sufficient determination that appropriate measures could not prevent him. The evidence showed serious vulnerability and previous suicidal behaviour, but the appellant had not completed an attempt and had responded to intervention. The expert evidence accepted that suitable hospital treatment in Croatia could manage a deterioration. The threshold for oppression was therefore not met.
3. Article 8. The court applied the approach in Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin). Delay could be relevant even if non-culpable, but the appellant was principally responsible for the delay before the warrant and the period resisting extradition attracted no weight. Any remaining delay had, at most, modest weight.
4. The appellant’s mental-health deterioration and the difficulty of detention in a country whose language he did not speak were relevant but carried very limited weight in the proportionality balance. His mother’s death removed the impact of losing his care as a relevant factor. The public interest in honouring extradition obligations and the other factors favouring extradition remained decisive. The further evidence did not satisfy the conditions in section 27(4).

• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the appeal against the extradition order.
• District Judge Snow: On 9 March 2023, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Croatia.