McIntyre v Government of the United States of America and the Home Secretary
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE CRANSTON
Areas of Law
- Extradition Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved an appellant contesting extradition to the US, citing PTSD and suicide risk. The appeal was made under the amended Extradition Act 2003, which mandates new evidence must demonstrate real injustice and exceptional circumstances. The court held the appeal did not meet these conditions and upheld the original order, noting compliance issues with evidence submission.
Judgment
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ:
This is the judgment of the court.
There is before the court an appeal under s. 108(5)-(8) of the Extradition Act 2003 ( the 2003 Act ); these provisions were inserted into the 2003 Act by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 ( the 2013 Act ).
It is common ground that under the transitional provisions of the Act, these new provisions apply to this appeal. Before turning to the specific circumstances of the appeal, it is necessary to set out the approach that we will take to the new provisions. The background is as follows.
(a) The Human Rights jurisdiction of the Home Secretary
The 2003 Act has always provided that in relation to extradition under Part 2 of the 2003 Act to category 2 territories (which include the USA), there must be an extradition hearing before a District Judge in respect of the requested person. If the conditions in the Act are satisfied, the District Judge then sends the case to the Home Secretary to decide whether to order extradition. If that decision is made and so ordered, then the requested person may appeal to the High Court against the decision of the District Judge and the Order of the Home Secretary.
If the appeal failed, then under the law as it had developed prior to the amendment to the 2003 Act effected by the 2013 Act , the requested person could seek to invite the Secretary of State to withdraw the extradition order on the basis that new circumstances had arisen which would put the Secretary of State in breach of her obligations as a public authority under s.6 of the Human Rights Act if the extradition proceeded. That jurisdiction, sometimes referred to as the McKinnon or “long stop” human rights jurisdiction, was explained in decisions of this court in which the court was asked to set aside by way of judicial review the decision of the Home Secretary refusing to withdraw the extradition order: see McKinnon v The Government of the USA [2007] EWHC 762 (Admin) at paragraphs 61-63 and McKinnon v The Home Secretary [2009] EWHC 2021 (Admin) at paragraphs 64-5.
(b) The proposals for reform
In the review of the UK’s extradition arrangements conducted under the chairmanship of Sir Scott Baker in September 2011 recommendations were made that the human rights issues arising at the end of the extradition process should be dealt with by the courts: see paragraphs 9.32-40 and 11.71-2 of the report of the review. The recommendation was that any supervening human rights issues arising after t