Lisa Cheeley Eis v Government of the United States of America

On an extradition appeal, the High Court must determine whether the district judge reached the wrong decision and whether a different decision would have required discharge. Fresh evidence is admitted only where it would have produced that result. An Article 3 challenge requires strong grounds for believing that the requested person faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, assessed on objective, reliable, specific and properly updated material. Opinion evidence on foreign prison conditions may be excluded where the witness lacks relevant country experience and merely reviews open-source material. Oppression under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires a high threshold, with proper consideration of available treatment in the requesting state. Article 8 requires balancing the private and family impact against the strong public interest in extradition; ordinarily, family rights prevail only where the consequences are exceptionally severe.

The appellant was wanted by the United States for trial in California on allegations of theft, false accounting and misuse of information involving more than $300,000. Following committal by Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the Secretary of State ordered extradition. The appellant appealed under the Extradition Act 2003, relying on Article 3 ECHR prison conditions, oppression under section 91 because of her physical and mental health, and Article 8 family and private life. She also sought to adduce a later psychiatric report. The central issues were whether the district judge had erred, whether the fresh evidence satisfied the statutory test, and whether extradition would expose the appellant to prohibited treatment, oppression or disproportionate interference with family life.

1. Appeal and fresh evidence. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003, the question was whether the district judge had made the wrong decision so that discharge was required. Findings of fact, particularly after hearing evidence, ordinarily required respect. The addendum psychiatric report did not satisfy the strict test in section 104(4): it confirmed deterioration which the district judge had already accepted and would not have required discharge.
2. Article 3. The applicable question was whether there were strong grounds for believing that extradition created a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. The assessment was fact-sensitive and required properly updated, objective and reliable information. The district judge was entitled to exclude Mr Tugushi’s opinions on Californian prisons. He had not visited prisons in the United States and his conclusions principally reviewed open-source material. It was for the judge to determine the risk from the evidence. The open-source material was largely old, and the recent material had a limited evidential base. The evidence did not establish substantial grounds for a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment.
3. Section 91. Oppression required a high burden approaching the Article 3 threshold. The court had to focus intensely on the person’s medical condition and the practical consequences of extradition, while considering whether treatment or other arrangements in the requesting state could meet the adverse effects. Treatment need not replicate treatment in the United Kingdom. PTSD, diabetes and the other conditions relied on did not make extradition oppressive where treatment remained available.
4. Article 8. The public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and addressing serious allegations outweighed the appellant’s private and family interests. Her marriage was precarious, her children were adults living in the United States, and the consequences, although severe, were not exceptionally severe. Extradition was therefore proportionate.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 22 November 2023, the district judge sent the case to the Secretary of State.
• Secretary of State: Extradition was ordered on 15 January 2024.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission was granted by Hill J and the appeal was dismissed.