Michael Turner v Ireland
[2024] EWHC 1526 (Admin)
Jason Platt v The High Court of the Republic of Ireland
15 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1821 (Admin)
High Court
A man is fighting extradition because it will make his mentally ill partner very unwell, possibly leading to her being hospitalized against her will. The judge ruled the man should still be extradited because the crimes he's accused of are serious. A higher court agreed, saying the first judge's decision was fair.
Key Facts
- •Jason Platt appeals extradition to Ireland on Article 8 ECHR grounds.
- •Platt faces eight charges related to a fraudulent personal injury claim in Ireland.
- •Platt's partner, Ms. McKenna, has severe mental health issues and is heavily reliant on Platt.
- •Extradition is likely to significantly worsen Ms. McKenna's mental health, potentially leading to her detention under the Mental Health Act 1983.
- •The District Judge found extradition proportionate despite the impact on Ms. McKenna.
- •The appeal focused on whether the District Judge adequately considered the virtually certain consequence of Ms. McKenna's detention and the risk of public mental health services failing to prevent suicide or self-harm.
Legal Principles
Proportionality under Article 8 ECHR in extradition cases involves balancing the public interest in extradition against the interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and their family.
HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2013] 1 AC 338; Norris v United States of America (No 2) [2010] 2 AC 487
The High Court's role in extradition appeals is one of review, not rehearing. The court should not interfere simply because it takes a different view of the value judgment made by the District Judge.
Belbin v Regional Court of Lille, France [2015] EWHC 149 (Admin); In re B (a child) [2013] 1 WLR 1911; Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551; Love v Government of the United States of America [2018] 1 WLR 2889
In extradition cases, only exceptionally serious interference with family life will outweigh the public interest in extradition.
Norris v United States of America (No 2) [2010] 2 AC 487
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the District Judge's decision was not wrong. While the potential impact on Ms. McKenna was serious, the seriousness of the charges against Platt and the public interest in extradition outweighed this. The court held that the District Judge did not err in his assessment of the likelihood of Ms. McKenna’s detention or the adequacy of mental health support available to her, and that there was no need for an additional test of “exceptional hardship” beyond the proportionality test itself.
Applications to admit fresh evidence refused.
The court found that the fresh evidence, while concerning, did not demonstrate that the District Judge’s decision was wrong, or would have been different had the evidence been before him. The evidence was not sufficiently cogent, contemporaneous, or thorough.