VB & Ors v Westminster Magistrates' Court & Ors
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MOSES
- MR JUSTICE MITTING
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Evidence Law
- Extradition Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the case concerning the extradition of claimants to Rwanda, the court addressed the legality of considering undisclosed evidence in extradition proceedings. The claimants argued against extradition citing unfair trial risks, but the judge ruled that evidence must be disclosed to both parties for consideration. The court highlighted Section 86(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which allows for anonymous evidence, providing a legal pathway for claimants to protect witness identities while presenting their case.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE MITTING :
By a Memorandum of Understanding signed on 8 March 2013 in respect of each claimant, the United Kingdom agreed to surrender him to Rwanda to stand trial for offences punishable under the laws of both countries by a minimum sentence of at least 12 months imprisonment. By paragraph 5 of the Memorandum a request for extradition was to be made in writing to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. By an 86 page document, with further extensive annexes, dated 2 April 2013, the Government of Rwanda requested the extradition of each claimant to stand trial for offences of genocide and related inchoate crimes, crimes against humanity and public order and murder. The claimants were arrested on 29 May 2013 and brought before Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
The Secretary of State has certified that arrangements have been made between the United Kingdom and Rwanda for the extradition of the claimants and that Rwanda is not a category 1 or 2 territory within the Extradition Act 2003 . Accordingly, Part 2 of the Act applies to Rwanda’s request with the modifications set out in Section 194(4)(a) and in the Memorandum. The principal modification is to Section 84: in the case of these requests, the Government of Rwanda, unlike a designated category 2 country, must establish that there is evidence sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by each claimant as if the proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him: Section 84(1).
Section 87 applies unamended: a judge “must decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 ”. If not, the judge must order the person’s discharge.
The claimants seek to establish before Deputy Senior District Judge Arbuthnot that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if extradited, there is a real risk that they will be subjected to a flagrantly unfair trial. If they succeed, it is now settled law in Strasbourg that the United Kingdom would be in breach of its obligations under Article 6 if they were to be extradited: Othman v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 1 paragraphs 258 – 262.
The claimants wish to adduce evidence from witnesses who are said not to be willing to give evidence if their evidence, and in particular anything in it from which their identity might be discerned, is revealed to the Government of Rwanda. In the case of a small number of witnesses it is said that they will only