Ferdi Colak v Government of Türkiye

Permission to appeal in extradition proceedings depends on whether the proposed ground is reasonably arguable. Where extradition is subject to prison assurances, the assurances must address a guaranteed retrial if there is a realistic possibility that the requested person may be permitted or required to attend in person. They must also preserve the minimum conditions necessary for Article 3 ECHR compliance.

An extradition abuse of process requires cogent evidence that the requesting state has usurped the statutory extradition regime or impugned its integrity. The speciality rule remains the relevant safeguard for offences pursued after surrender. For mental-health oppression, the court must make an overall assessment, including suicide risk, the voluntariness of any threatened suicide, and the adequacy of arrangements in the receiving prison system. PTSD deterioration may be relevant independently, but the threshold is fact-sensitive and high.

The appellant faced extradition to Türkiye under a conviction request concerning kidnap, sexual assault and threats. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court discharged the sexual-assault and threats matters under Extradition Act 2003, and sent the case to the Home Secretary on the kidnap offence alone. The Home Secretary ordered extradition.

The appellant renewed an application for permission to appeal on four issues: the adequacy of Yalvac prison assurances in light of a guaranteed retrial; extraneous considerations under section 81; abuse of extradition process; and oppression or Article 3 ECHR consequences arising from mental illness. The central question was whether any ground was reasonably arguable.

1. Permission and Yalvac assurances. Permission to appeal was granted on the narrow question whether the assurances had to address the appellant’s guaranteed retrial. It was reasonably arguable that they required either the Uckac assurance, an express guarantee covering relocation for in-person attendance, or another equivalent solution. Without such provision, the assurances could conflict with a Turkish trial court permitting or requiring attendance in person while preserving the guaranteed minimum personal space required by Demir v Türkiye (No.1) and Demir v Türkiye (No.2).
2. The point was not criticism of the magistrates’ judge, who had not been invited to address it and had decided the case before the Demir judgments. The court recognised that this was a conviction request, and that the retrial might be legally peripheral because the appellant had been deliberately absent at the original trial. That distinction might mean that a video-link guarantee was unnecessary, but a floorspace guarantee could still be required if in-person attendance were permitted or required. The substantive hearing was to determine the issue. Permission was granted to rely on the March 2025 Yalvac assurances, while the fresh-evidence question concerning the January 2026 Yildiz report was deferred.
3. Section 81. Permission was refused. The judge had applied the correct test and was entitled to find no reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant would be punished, detained or restricted because of Kurdish ethnicity, Alevi religion or political opinions. Generalised expert evidence, non-political charges, legal representation and the absence of evidence of judicial discrimination did not establish an arguable error.
4. Abuse of process. Permission was refused. The clear speciality prohibition in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition regulated any post-surrender pursuit of the discharged matters. Bartlett v Belgium concerned a distinct usurpation or manipulation of the extradition regime and did not assist. The cogent-evidence test stated in Belbin v France was not met.
5. Mental health. Permission was refused. Applying the principles in Turner v United States, the judge had made the required overall assessment and was entitled to conclude that the suicide risk, in light of the arrangements at Yalvac, did not cross the high threshold of oppression or breach Article 3. PTSD deterioration could be considered independently or alongside suicide risk, as recognised in ZA v Romania, but the evidence did not make the conclusion arguably wrong. The claim that the conditions were comparable to XY v Netherlands was not reasonably arguable.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tempia discharged the sexual-assault and threats matters under Extradition Act 2003 and sent the case to the Home Secretary on the kidnap offence alone.

Home Secretary: On 21 June 2021, the Home Secretary ordered extradition under section 93(4) for the kidnap charge.

High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted only on the Yalvac-assurances and guaranteed-retrial issue. Permission was refused on the section 81, abuse-of-process and mental-health issues.