Michael Lomas v Republic of South Africa
[2024] EWHC 731 (Admin)
Michael Lomas v Republic of South Africa & Anor (No 2)
20 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 637 (Admin)
High Court
A person facing extradition argued they were too ill to fly. A judge initially said no, but then changed their mind because of new medical evidence and confusion over who should decide if the person was fit to travel. The judge reopened the case to sort it out, preventing the person's immediate deportation.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning fitness to fly in an extradition case.
- •Initial judgment refused permission to appeal, addressing fitness to fly concerns briefly (§15).
- •Urgent application to reopen appeal based on new evidence and concerns regarding fitness to fly.
- •28-day window for removal under s.118 of the Extradition Act 2003 was imminent.
- •Multiple parties involved: Appellant, Republic of South Africa, Home Secretary, National Crime Agency (NCA), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
- •Expert medical evidence cited regarding Appellant's unfitness to fly.
- •Potential conflict over responsibility for assessing fitness to fly (Court vs. Home Secretary/other authorities).
Legal Principles
Rule 50.27 of the Criminal Procedure Rules allows for applications to reopen an appeal.
Criminal Procedure Rules
Section 118 of the Extradition Act 2003 sets a 28-day window for removal, generally non-extendable.
Extradition Act 2003
The court's role in considering fitness to fly in extradition cases, particularly concerning potential human rights implications (e.g., Article 3 ECHR).
Case Law and Human Rights Law
The approach illustrated by Arezina v Bosnia [2023] EWHC 1980 (Admin) regarding adjournment for further evidence on fitness to fly.
Arezina v Bosnia [2023] EWHC 1980 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission granted to reopen the appeal solely to revisit the fitness to fly issue.
New evidence, urgency of situation, uncertainty regarding responsibility for fitness to fly assessment, and potential for injustice.
The 28-day removal window was displaced due to the reopened appeal.
Reopening the appeal prevents immediate extradition.
The case was relisted for further hearing to address fitness to fly.
To allow all relevant parties to participate in determining fitness to fly and addressing the procedural questions raised.
Application for an interim injunction preventing removal was refused.
The judge preferred reopening the appeal for the specific purpose of addressing fitness to fly.