AC-2023-LON-003019 - [2025] EWHC 1851 (Admin)

Fecha: 25-Jul-2025

Ground 1 – Section 25

Ground 1 – Section 25

Legal framework

48.

Section 25 of the 2003 Act provides as follows:

"25 Physical or mental condition

(1)

This section applies if at any time in the extradition hearing it appears to the Judge that the condition in subsection (2) is satisfied.

(2)

The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.

(3)

The Judge must—

order the person's discharge, or

adjourn the extradition hearing until it appears to him that the condition in subsection (2) is no longer satisfied."

49.

The concept of extradition being " unjust or oppressive " has a long history in extradition law. As explained in Kakis v The Government of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 772 , by Lord Diplock at pages 782-783:

"…"Unjust" I regard as directed primarily to the risk of prejudice to the accused in the conduct of the trial itself, "oppressive" as directed to hardship to the accused resulting from changes in his circumstances that have occurred during the period to be taken into consideration; but there is room for overlapping, and between them they would cover all cases where to return him would not be fair…"

50.

Under established principles whether there is "oppression" or "injustice" is to be determined by the nature and gravity of the conduct alleged and the enduring public interest in extradition and prevention of safe havens (Government of the Republic of South Africa v Dewani (No. 1) [2013] 1 W.L.R. 82 at [¶74]).

51.

The law relating to oppression and suicide risk is set out in a series of well-known propositions at [28] of the judgment in Turner v Government of the United States of America [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin) and developed, in relation to the management of risk, in Polish Judicial Authority v Wolkowicz and others [2013] EWHC 102 (Admin) at [10]. It is not necessary to repeat the analysis. It will rarely be necessary to look outside the two authorities for the applicable principles (Government of the United States of America v Assange [2021] EWHC 3313 (Admin) [2022] 4 WLR 11).