[2025] EWHC 2475 (Admin)

The new evidence that the appellant seeks to adduce comprises addendum witness statements from the appellant and his partner and a considerable amount of medical documentation. There is, however, no further expert report on the appellant.

There is a referral letter from Wembley Park Medical Centre ,apparently produced by a Mr Olayinka, who is a mental health practitioner. This referral letter is dated June 2025. The referral letter describes the appellant as saying that he feels constantly sad, he sleeps excessively, he is unable to function and that his head is like a tsunami: he feels overwhelmed and confused about what to do. There is then a reference to "two previous suicide attempts: first, overdose of the diazepam, cocaine and alcohol (six or seven tablets); second, self-harm by cutting body and limbs, both attempts resulted in hospital admission".

The letter says that the appellant’s symptoms had worsened during the recent three-week period when the appellant's children were in Poland for Easter holidays. Then again a reference is made to two previous suicide attempts with hospital admission. The appellant is recorded as being asthmatic. As for medication, it is said that he is not on any psychotropic medication.

He reported auditory hallucinations relating to threats from what were said to be former football gang associates. Those concerned being killed if imprisoned in Poland. He heard voices telling him he would be killed when he goes to prison in Poland.

Reference is made to current suicidal ideation being denied due to the presence of children at home. He states that he cuts himself when he is distressed. He expresses a fear of being killed by his former associates if extradited.

So far as accommodation in the United Kingdom is concerned, the letter notes that the appellant had been renting accommodation of some years, but the family were facing potential eviction as the landlord wanted to sell the property. That is something confirmed in the recent witness statement of the appellant's partner.

There are a number of issues with the cogency of the evidence to which I have just made reference. First, it is largely based on the appellant's self-reporting. It is not the product of a doctor specialising in such matters; secondly, the reports appear to contradict the assessment that there have been two suicide attempts by the appellant. At page 140 of the bundle, where we see the most recently adduced evidence, there is a report that refers to the appellant living alone and having family in Poland. This describes him as having been discharged from Northwick Park Hospital following an overdose of diazepam and cocaine. The appellant reported taking two diazepam to help him sleep and not with suicidal intent.

At page 144 of the bundle, there is a letter from Harrow Liaison Psychiatric Services to the appellant's GP practice. This is dated 2 April 2025. It says that there was some concern that the appellant had taken the overdose with the intent to end his life "however, we were unable to clarify his specific intent".

The evidence also suggested that there was reason to question whether the appellant had lived with his partner and the two children throughout the relevant time. I have referred to the statement in the evidence that the appellant was living alone. It was, of course, possible that the writer was mistaken and that the partner and children were only absent temporarily over Easter. However, at page 215, there is a record produced by the London North-East Healthcare NHS Trust that reports as follows: "The partner said the children and herself were living in a different house from patient". This record is dated 20 September 2021. Somewhat unusually, perhaps, the partner's latest witness statement does not specify her address. That statement is dated 26 May 2025. She confirms the potential problem regarding the landlord wanting to have possession of the property in which the family were living. She describes the children as being her whole world and they are doing well overall. The younger child is very little and does not fully understand what is happening, which is said to be a small blessing. The older child is more aware. The parents have been trying to prepare the child gently by telling her that her father might have to go away for work but she asks questions that are hard to answer.

The partner describes the appellant as a devoted father. He spends as much time as he can with the children; they are very close. They carry out activities together, such as cycling and playing in the park. The partner says she works during school hours to help support the family. The appellant has always done his best to provide for them too. Even though he suffers from asthma and sometimes has bad attacks, the appellant tries to take on small jobs so as to be able to contribute financially

The partner considers that the children would be heartbroken if the appellant were extradited. They are settled in their school, have close friendships and speak English fluently.

The appellant's new statement is also dated 26 May 2025. He begins by saying that he has been on an electronically-monitored curfew for one year and eight months and that it feels like he is imprisoned in his own home every night. He cannot socialise in the evenings, he cannot attend any events. He cannot even consider going away for a weekend or holiday. All of this, he says, has significantly restricted his liberty.

Since the judgment at Westminster Magistrates' Court, the appellant says his general health has deteriorated. He has breathing difficulties, with frequent coughing. This is particularly so when he feels under stress or is panicked, which is most days at present. He becomes tired very easily and finds it hard to motivate himself. On top of all this, he suffers blood pressure fluctuations, which can leave him feeling lightheaded and unwell. He regularly experiences headaches and severe migraines,

The appellant says his mental health has also severely deteriorated over time, particularly since the proceedings began. He constantly worries about his family. His children mean everything to him and are the reason that he tries to keep going. He is terrified of being separated from them.

The appellant said that he had had suicidal thoughts around the holiday period. When he was left alone without his children and partner, his thoughts became particularly dark. That period triggered what he said is a serious suicidal episode.

All of this is placing a heavy emotional burden on the appellant 's partner and children. The appellant says that he is due to undergo a medical examination and endoscopy to investigate ongoing stomach issues. He was due to have this procedure prior to making the witness statement, but was told that the appointment had been cancelled, although it is said that he had a follow- up appointment booked for the end of June.

So far as the appellant's asthma is concerned, I note that there is a clinical out-patient summary of a review that was undertaken at the Royal Free London in August 2023. This records that, whilst the appellant had stopped smoking cigarettes, he was still smoking marijuana and the clinicians discussed with the appellant the benefits of avoiding all inhaled substances.

During the hearing on 22 July 2025, Miss Herbert, who appears for the appellant, asked to take her client's oral instructions about certain matters in the additional evidence to which I have made reference. Having done so, she said that the position was as follows. In 2021, the partner and the children had, indeed, moved out of the property in which the appellant was then residing, The partner did so as a result of the appellant's cocaine use. They went to stay with a neighbour. After a short period, they moved back with the appellant and have remained together since. The partner and the children did go on their own to Poland for several weeks earlier in 2025. It was, the partner said, during their absence that the appellant took both diazepam and cocaine, which resulted in his hospitalisation.

Miss Herbert's instructions are that the references in the medical documentation to the appellant living alone earlier in 2025 are as a result of a misunderstanding. The appellant was only living temporarily alone, owing to the absence of the remainder of the family in Poland,

It is perhaps regrettable that these matters were not identified earlier and proper steps taken to address them, including by way of witness statements. That said, I am, nevertheless, prepared to take the appellant's case at its highest and to accept what Miss Herbert has said about the family's past and present circumstances.

I am also prepared to accept that the appellant may have made what some healthcare professionals have now categorised as two suicide attempts.

I have admitted the new evidence de bene esse. But whether it should be substantively admitted will depend upon whether, taking it in the round with all the other evidence, it would have caused the district judge to decide the matter before him differently. In other words, I must be satisfied that the evidence, viewed in that context, would have been decisive.