Maria Nieves Hegazey v Concepcion Espejel Jorquera (Spain)
[2024] EWHC 1280 (Admin)
Ross Moore v Criminal Court No 4 In Malaga, Spain
13 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1458 (Admin)
High Court
A man was convicted of manslaughter in Spain and fled to the UK. A UK court decided he must return to Spain to finish his sentence, even though he claims he's mentally unwell and it would harm his family life. The court considered his mental health and the impact on his family but ultimately decided the public interest in him serving his sentence outweighs these concerns.
Key Facts
- •Ross Moore, a 39-year-old UK national, is wanted for extradition to Spain.
- •He was convicted in Spain in February 2020 of manslaughter, receiving a 14-month suspended sentence.
- •The sentence was activated in November 2021 due to non-payment, leaving 351 days to serve.
- •He was arrested in the UK on 5 April 2023 and released on bail with electronic monitoring.
- •Extradition was ordered by District Judge Griffiths on 4 October 2023.
- •Moore argues against extradition based on his mental health and Article 8 rights (family life).
- •A new psychiatric report (Furtado 2) raises concerns about a high suicide risk.
- •Moore left Spain in 2021, putting himself outside the reach of Spanish authorities.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
ECHR
Section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 (oppression)
Extradition Act 2003
The 'Turner' test for challenging extradition decisions.
Case law (implied)
Considerations of public interest in extradition, including fugitivity.
Case law (implied)
The requirement for Spanish authorities to provide appropriate medical care.
Case law (implied)
Assessment of suicide risk in extradition cases.
Case law (implied)
Relevant case law: Magiera v Poland [2017] EWHC 757 (Admin) and XY v Netherlands [2019] EWHC 64 (Admin)
Case law
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
The court found no realistic prospect of overturning the Article 8 or section 25 outcome, even with the new psychiatric report. The judge determined the new evidence did not undermine the previous decision and the Turner test was not met.
Permission to rely on Furtado 2 refused.
The court deemed the new evidence incapable of being decisive.