Key Facts
- •Paul Nicholls (Applicant) seeks permission to appeal the District Judge's decision to extradite him to the USA.
- •The US seeks extradition for drug trafficking and money laundering, carrying a potential life sentence.
- •The Applicant argues a real risk of an irreducible life sentence without parole, violating Article 3 ECHR.
- •The District Judge considered evidence from both the US prosecution and the Applicant's expert.
- •The District Judge ultimately rejected the Applicant's claim, finding no substantial grounds for believing a life sentence without parole was a real risk.
Legal Principles
Extradition is incompatible with Article 3 ECHR if there's a real risk of inhumane or degrading treatment, including an irreducible life sentence.
Article 3 ECHR, Hafeez v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWCA 155 (Admin), Sanchez-Sanchez v United Kingdom (22854/20), (2023) 76 E.H.R.R. 16 (2022)
The test is whether there are substantial grounds for believing a real risk of a sentence of life without parole exists; if so, the sending state must ascertain that a mechanism of sentence review exists.
Sanchez-Sanchez v United Kingdom
A life sentence is not inherently incompatible with Article 3 if not grossly disproportionate and review mechanisms exist (e.g., compassionate release, executive clemency).
Hafeez v Government of the United States of America
On appeal, the court assesses whether the District Judge's decision was wrong; crucial factors should have been weighed differently to make the decision wrong.
Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
Outcomes
The renewed application for permission to appeal is refused.
The Court found the District Judge's decision was not wrong. The Judge's preference for the prosecution's evidence, which indicated a life sentence without parole was unlikely, was supported by sufficient evidence and reasoning. The Applicant failed to demonstrate a real risk of an irreducible life sentence without parole.