Bar Cohen v Local Court at Bamberg, Germany

Hearing dates: 10 June 2025 – 11 June 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on 25 July 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

I. Introduction

The Appellant, Bar Cohen, is an Israeli national. He appeals the order of the District Judge, dated 5 October 2023, for his extradition to Germany. The order was made pursuant to an accusation warrant issued by the Local Court of Bamberg, Germany, on 2 November 2022 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 3 November 2022.

The offending alleged against the Appellant is summarised in the decision of the District Judge as follows:

“The [Requested Person] is alleged to have been the leading mastermind of a cyber trading fraud which caused approximately €14 million loss. The TACA Warrant alleges as follows:

In late 2016, the Requested Person, together with someone called Yuval Shem Tov, decided to commit acts of fraud jointly and continuously through cyber trading.

The Requested Person and Yuval Shem Tov opened and operated call centres in Bulgaria (Sofia) and Israel (Tel Aviv). …Alongside Yuval Shem Tov, who was his “equal by his side” the Requested Person “was the head of the ring and its leading ‘mastermind’.

…The TACA Warrant sets out how, “on the orders of the accused the retention agents acted fraudulently to causes losses to accrue to customers in Germany.” The agents pretended to numerous customers in Germany, by phone and email, that they were working for a particular trading platform (eg Speartrader, Zuercher Capital, E Markets Trade, Alpha Financial Group, Geneva Capital Group, Zurich Financial Group and Pro Markets Group). They made false claims. They promised customers large profits even though they were specifically aware that there was no chance of the customers preserving their capital or receiving capital gains. At no point were investments actually made or options placed on behalf of the customers. Instead, the money distributed by customers “was immediately distributed in a complex money laundering network” throughout Europe. …”.

The Appellant was arrested at Heathrow Airport on 3 November 2022, having arrived from Israel with his wife to spend his honeymoon in the UK. He was remanded in custody at HMP Wandsworth for a short period before being released on bail.

The hearing before the District Judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court took place over 4 days (11 – 14 September 2023). The application for permission to appeal the order for extradition was lodged on 11 October 2023. Three applications by the Appellant to adduce fresh evidence followed, dated 7 November 2023, 31 May 2024 and 12 May 2025. A Respondent's Notice and application to adduce fresh evidence was served on 11 December 2023 and further fresh evidence on 4 June 2025. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds on 20 February 2025. The fresh evidence was admitted de bene esse with the decision on admissibility to be considered at the substantive hearing of the appeal.

Before the Judge it was, and remains, common ground that in 2018 the Appellant suffered a significant head injury following a fall in Israel and required a series of serious operations. As a result, the Appellant has a number of ongoing physical and mental health issues. However, the extent of his difficulties was a core evidential dispute between the parties at the extradition hearing.

The three grounds of appeal are that the District Judge was wrong not to find:

a. extradition is oppressive by reason of the Appellant's mental and physical health (s25 Extradition Act 2003);

b. extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with the Appellant's private and family life under Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (s21A Extradition Act); and

c. extradition is an abuse of the Court's process.

This judgment is in 8 main parts as follows:

II. Evidence before the District Judge

The following written (and photographic) evidence was put before the District Judge:

a. The Appellant's mental health:

i. letter from Professor Sagi Harnof MD, Chair of the Neurology Department at the Rabin Medical Centre, dated 6 November 2022;

ii. clinical report of Gal Sela, neuropsychologist, dated October 2021;

iii. clinical opinion from Dr Orit Stein-Reisner, expert in psychiatry, dated 18 January 2022;

iv. letter from Tali Katz, the psychotherapist who treated the Appellant and kept detailed notes until October 2022, dated 19 July 2023;

v. report of Dr Stephen Attard, a forensic psychiatrist, dated 23 March 2023;

vi. addendum report of Dr Attard, dated 6 September 2023

vii. report of Dr Michael Watts, a consultant clinical neurophysiologist, dated 10 March 2023;

viii. report of Dr Claudia Bernat, psychiatrist, dated 19 July 2023;

ix. letter from Dr Michael Zivor, clinical psychologist, dated 25 June 2023;

x. letter from Dr Ahmed Toma, consultant neurosurgeon, dated 11 July 2023;

xi. Witness Statements of Kamila Kwincinska, the senior paralegal at Howard Kennedy LLP acting for the Appellant, dated November 2022 and 30 March 2023;

xii. Exhibit KK/1, showing injuries to the Appellant's face following a self-harm incident;

xiii. expert report of Professor Seena Fazel, a specialist in forensic psychiatry, dated 16 May 2023;

xiv. addendum report of Professor Fazel, dated 24 August 2023;

xv. statements of agreement of Dr Attard and Professor Fazel, dated 17 July 2023;

xvi. photographs of injuries to the Appellant's face;

b. The Appellant's physical health:

xvii. letter from Inbal Guy, physiotherapist, dated 10 November 2022;

xviii. letter from Alex Shurygin, osteopath, dated 9 November 2022;

xix. report of Mr Shahab Siddiqi, consultant colorectal surgeon, dated 7 July 2023;

xx. addendum report of Mr Siddiqi, dated 7 September 2023;

xxi. letter from Maria Elliott, Specialist Pelvic Health Physiotherapist, dated 6 July 2023;

xxii. report of Ms Anna Henshaw, an occupational therapist, dated 14 March 2023;

xxiii. report of Ms Kathryn McCarthy, consultant colorectal surgeon, dated 16 August 2023;

xxiv. letter from Victoria Fury of Clairmont Health, received on 13 July 2023;

c. German prison conditions and risk of antisemitic attack:

xxv. report of Dr Anna Oehmichen, a legal practitioner in Germany and specialist in German criminal law, dated 10 March 2023 and annex 1 to Dr Oehmichen's report – Europass V;

xxvi. addendum report of Dr Oehmichen, dated 8 September 2023;

d. The Appellant's private and family life:

xxvii. Proof of evidence of Bar Cohen dated 16 December 2022;

xxviii. Witness Statements of the Appellant's wife, Dor Nissan Cohen, dated 24 March 2023, 20 July 2023, 30 August 2023 and 6 September 2023;

xxix. Witness Statement of the Appellant's mother, Riky Cohen, dated 24 March 2023;

xxx. Witness Statement of the Appellant's sister, Shir Cohen, dated 24 March 2023;

e. Evidence relevant to alleged abuse of process by the German authorities:

xxxi. report of Mr Nir Yaslovitzh, a practising attorney in Israel and specialist in Israeli criminal and extradition law, dated 26 March 2023;

xxxii. addendum report of Mr Yaslovitzh, dated 6 September 2023;

xxxiii. Articles 81–88 of Interpol's Rules on the Processing of Data.

The Judge heard oral evidence tested under cross examination as follows. She heard evidence about the Appellant's mental health from two consultant forensic psychiatrists; Dr Attard, instructed on behalf of the Appellant and Professor Fazel, instructed on behalf of the Respondent. She also heard from Dr Watts, a consultant clinical neuropsychologist instructed on behalf of the Appellant. Their evidence may be summarised as follows:

a) Dr Attard: In his opinion the Appellant was suffering from severe PTSD, depression and cognitive impairment, consequential on his brain injury. The Appellant was currently at moderate risk of suicide. Treatment with anti-depressant medication is likely to be of significant importance in ameliorating his symptoms of PTSD and reducing his risk of suicide but it is likely he will require significant psychological support in order to be able to take this step. In the event of extradition, it is likely that there would be a substantial deterioration in the Appellant's mental state and a corresponding increase in his risk of self-harm and suicide. The Appellant would be at substantial risk of suicide. There would be a high risk that his capacity to resist the impulse to commit suicide would be removed or greatly reduced to the point that in legal terms the decision to commit suicide would not be a free and voluntary decision.

b) Dr Watts: The Appellant has capacity to make decisions including deciding not to take medication which in conjunction with the other therapies, would have a better outcome generally, in relation to his depression. Assuming equivalent medical care in prison in Germany to that in the UK, the Appellant's mental health needs could be met in custody....