Jason Platt v The High Court of the Republic of Ireland
[2024] EWHC 1821 (Admin)
Michael Turner v Ireland
16 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1526 (Admin)
High Court
A man is fighting extradition to Ireland because he fears for his safety and worries about his family. A late mental health report claiming a suicide risk was thrown out because his lawyers didn't act quickly enough and misled the court. The judge decided the risk of suicide wasn't big enough to stop the extradition and that the man's family would cope, so he must go to Ireland.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Michael Turner appeals extradition to Ireland on accusations related to threats, and two armed robberies.
- •Turner claims a substantial risk of human rights violations in Ireland due to threats from gangs.
- •Turner argues extradition violates his right to family life under Article 8 ECHR.
- •A psychiatric report by Dr. Gupta was submitted as new evidence, claiming a high suicide risk if extradited.
- •The court considers the admissibility of Dr. Gupta's report and the application of section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of fresh evidence in extradition appeals.
Hungary v. Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin);
Bars to extradition under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 (mental health).
Turner v. Government of the United States of America [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin); Wolkowicz v. Regional Court of Bialystok, Poland [2013] 1 WLR 2402; Modi v. Government of India [2022] EWHC 2829 (Admin)
Balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR in extradition cases.
Norris v. Government of USA (No.2) [2010] 2 AC 487; HH v. Deputy Prosecutor of Italian Republic, Genoa [2013] 1 AC 338; Celinski v. Slovakian Judicial Authority [2016] 1 WLR 551
Duty of candour to the court.
Inherent in the court process.
Outcomes
Application to adduce fresh evidence refused.
The psychiatric report was deemed inadmissible due to lack of reasonable diligence in obtaining it before the initial hearing, and misleading statements to the court.
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that Dr. Gupta's report did not meet the threshold for barring extradition under section 25 of the 2003 Act, and did not alter the Celinski balance regarding Article 8 rights. The appellant's actions and his lawyer's misrepresentation to the court lead to the dismissal of the appeal.