Michael Lomas v Republic of South Africa & Anor (No 2)
[2024] EWHC 637 (Admin)
Michael Lomas v Republic of South Africa
27 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 731 (Admin)
High Court
A man facing extradition was too ill to fly, his lawyers argued. The court decided that while the man was unwell, the plans to get him to his trial country included enough precautions to keep him safe during the flight. Therefore, the extradition could go ahead.
Key Facts
- •Extradition case concerning the appellant's fitness to fly due to complex neurological conditions.
- •Appellant's condition includes multilevel degenerative spine disease and advanced cervical myelopathy.
- •Expert medical opinions provided by Mr. Ameen and Mr. Nader-Sepahi raised concerns about the appellant's fitness to fly.
- •The case involved multiple hearings, including an application to reopen the appeal.
- •The roles and responsibilities of the UK public authorities, particularly the Home Secretary and the NCA, in relation to fitness to fly were debated.
- •The court considered the application of the legal prism of s.91 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 3 ECHR.
Legal Principles
The court's role is to evaluate fitness to fly through the lens of s.91 of the Extradition Act 2003 (injustice or oppression due to physical/mental condition) and Article 3 ECHR (real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment).
Various sections throughout the judgment.
There is no freestanding function to evaluate fitness to fly independently of the legal prism of s.91 and Article 3 ECHR.
The judgment.
The Home Secretary has no decision-making function regarding fitness to fly in Part 2 extradition cases.
The judgment.
The NCA is responsible for arranging the extradition and considering practical arrangements, including those related to fitness to fly.
The judgment.
The court can adjourn proceedings to address fitness to fly if necessary, applying the legal prism of s.91 and Article 3 ECHR.
The judgment.
The court applies a rigorous yet pragmatic and circumspect approach to the evaluation of evidence related to fitness to fly.
Bobbe v Poland [2017] EWHC 3161 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission to appeal was refused.
The court found that the evidence did not reasonably arguably meet the threshold for s.91 (oppression) or Article 3 ECHR (inhuman or degrading treatment). The precautions put in place by the NCA were deemed sufficient.
The Home Secretary was deemed to have no role in assessing fitness to fly and was removed from the case.
The court determined that the Home Secretary's function is limited under statute to specific questions in Part 2 extradition cases, not including fitness to fly.