Key Facts
- •Appeal against extradition of Maria Nieves Hegazey to Spain for forgery and misappropriation of funds.
- •Appellant is a 62-year-old Spanish national, living in the UK for over 30 years with strong family ties.
- •Appellant was convicted in absentia in Spain in 2018 and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
- •Appellant's mental health significantly deteriorated, including substantial suicide risk, impacted by extradition proceedings.
- •Appeal focused on Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) and section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 (unjust or oppressive extradition).
- •New medical evidence regarding Appellant's deteriorating mental health was admitted on appeal.
Legal Principles
Extradition must be compatible with Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003
Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise: interference with rights must be exceptionally serious to outweigh extradition's importance.
Norris v Government of the United States of America (No. 2) [2010] UKSC 9
Section 25 of the 2003 Act: Extradition must not be unjust or oppressive due to the individual's physical or mental condition.
Section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003
In determining 'oppression' or 'injustice', consider the gravity of the alleged conduct and the public interest in extradition.
The Government of the Republic of South Africa v Dewani (No. 1) [2013] 1 W.L.R. 82
High threshold for showing oppressive extradition due to physical or mental condition.
Mikolajczyk v Wroclaw District Court [2010] EWHC 3503
Guidance on suicide risk in extradition cases, considering measures during UK custody, transfer, and detention in the requesting state.
Wolkowicz v Regional Court in Bialystock, Poland [2013] EWHC 102
Appellate court respects first instance fact-finding unless clear errors exist; judgment considered as a whole.
Celinski and Wiejak v Olsztyn Circuit Court of Poland [2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; extradition quashed.
Extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the Appellant's Article 8 ECHR rights due to her significant mental health issues, substantial suicide risk, and the overall circumstances of the case.