Key Facts
- •Multiple applications for permission to appeal against extradition to South Africa.
- •Concerns regarding the appellant's physical and mental health, including suicide risk and fitness to fly.
- •Previous applications addressed physical health (diverticulitis, bloody diarrhoea), fitness to fly, and mental health.
- •New evidence submitted regarding worsening mental health and suicide risk, supported by psychiatric reports.
- •Applications made under s.108(5)-(8) of the Extradition Act 2003 and CrimPR 50.27.
- •Interim measures applications to the European Court of Human Rights were declined.
Legal Principles
Article 3 ECHR (inhuman or degrading treatment) and s.91 Extradition Act 2003 (oppression) high thresholds.
Various judgments in the Lomas v South Africa series
Assessment of fitness to fly as a question for the court in extradition proceedings.
Lomas v South Africa (No.2)
Test for oppression in relation to suicide risk: whether the risk of suicide, despite appropriate arrangements, is sufficiently great due to a mental condition removing the capacity to resist the impulse to commit suicide.
Turner v USA [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin), Fletcher v India [2021] EWHC 610 (Admin), Modi v India [2022] EWHC 2829 (Admin)
Consideration of suicide risk at Stages 1 (pre-transfer), 2 (transfer), and 3 (post-transfer).
Various judgments in the Lomas v South Africa series
Outcomes
Fourth application regarding physical health and fitness to fly dismissed.
Substance was a re-run of points addressed in the Fourth Judgment; evidence did not arguably cross the thresholds of Article 3 and s.91.
One-day rolled-up hearing directed to consider dual application (s.108 and CrimPR 50.27) based on mental health and suicide risk.
New evidence presented meets the high threshold derived from case law; further consideration of whether suicide risk arises from extradition, whether suicide would be voluntary, appropriate steps identified, and whether the risk is sufficiently high to constitute oppression.