Joshua Hobson v Investigating Court No 2 Palma, Spain

On an appeal against an extradition order, the court must apply the statutory conditions governing appellate intervention. Under Extradition Act 2003, section 25, oppression requires a sufficiently substantial suicide risk linked to a mental condition which removes the person’s capacity to resist the impulse, assessed together with the safeguards available in the requesting state.

Article 8 requires a fact-sensitive balancing exercise. The public interest in prosecuting serious offences and fulfilling extradition obligations generally carries great weight. Mental health, family life and time spent on remand remain relevant but will not usually outweigh that interest without exceptionally severe consequences.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made by District Judge Minhas on 4 February 2025. Spain sought his extradition in connection with allegations of sexual abuse of a child and possession of child pornography.

The appeal challenged findings under section 25 and Article 8 of the ECHR. The central issues were whether the appellant’s borderline personality disorder and fluctuating risk of self-harm made extradition unjust or oppressive, and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with his private and family life.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to establish that the District Judge ought to have reached a different decision or that discharge was required under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003.

2. The District Judge was entitled to find that the evidence did not establish a substantial suicide risk of the kind required by the authorities. The evidence showed a fluctuating risk associated with emotional dysregulation, but the appellant retained capacity and understanding of his actions and could resist the impulse to commit suicide.

3. Even if the risk was substantial at particular times, it had to be assessed alongside the measures which Spain could reasonably be expected to provide. The evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant’s condition could be managed through medication, observation and mental-health support. There was no evidence that Spanish prison authorities could not provide adequate safeguards.

4. The District Judge was also entitled to conclude that medication had effectively managed the appellant’s condition in custody. The condition was relatively common and did not require unusually complex management.

5. Article 8 required a balancing exercise, without any test of exceptionality. The public interest in prosecuting serious alleged offences, recording convictions if guilt were established, preventing safe havens and honouring extradition obligations carried substantial weight. The appellant’s private and family life in the United Kingdom was limited, and the assessment that he was unlikely to have served all or nearly all of any eventual Spanish sentence was realistic. The conclusion that extradition was proportionate could not be characterised as wrong.

6. Obiter guidance was given for future extradition appeals involving disputed oral evidence. A party relying on such evidence should identify it clearly in the grounds or respondent’s notice, provide a separate note, and seek agreement. The burden rests on the party alleging that the District Judge’s summary was inaccurate or materially incomplete.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order dismissed. The decision under appeal was made by District Judge Minhas on 4 February 2025.