Michael Lomas v Republic of South Africa
[2024] EWHC 731 (Admin)
Hamdi Cherif v Government of Norway
9 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 213 (Admin)
High Court
A man was fighting extradition to Norway due to health concerns. The court reviewed his new health evidence and decided it wasn't strong enough to stop the extradition. They also said he already had enough time to gather evidence earlier.
Key Facts
- •Hamdi Cherif's extradition to Norway was requested for four offences, including domestic violence and assault, resulting in a sentence of 1 year and 4 months imprisonment.
- •Cherif suffers from heart failure and has undergone heart surgery.
- •He challenged the extradition on Article 8 ECHR and s.91 Extradition Act 2003 grounds (unjust or oppressive due to health condition).
- •Initial permission to appeal was refused by Heather Williams J.
- •Cherif's renewed application for permission to appeal was based on new medical evidence.
- •The National Extradition Unit has a duty to ensure fitness to fly and will make alternative arrangements if necessary.
- •The court considered further medical evidence but found it insufficient to meet the Fenyvesi test for fresh evidence.
Legal Principles
Fresh evidence test in extradition cases (Fenyvesi test)
[2009] EWHC 231 (Admin)
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
European Convention on Human Rights
Section 91 Extradition Act 2003 (barring extradition if unjust or oppressive due to physical or mental condition)
Extradition Act 2003
Overriding objective in extradition proceedings (Crim PR 50.2)
Crim PR 50.2
Human Rights Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998
Outcomes
Refusal of renewed application for permission to appeal.
New medical evidence did not meet the Fenyvesi test; it was not decisive and did not show extradition would be oppressive. The National Extradition Unit's responsibility to ensure fitness to fly negated the need for adjournment.
Refusal of application for adjournment.
Sufficient time was available to obtain medical evidence before the initial hearing; further tests would likely be part of the extradition process anyway.
Similar Cases
Michael Lomas v Republic of South Africa (No 3)
[2024] EWHC 1141 (Admin)
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)
Michael Lomas v Republic of South Africa & Anor (No 2)
[2024] EWHC 637 (Admin)
Emil Sebastian Grabowski v Circuit Court in Swidnica (Poland)
[2023] EWHC 1541 (Admin)