Hamza v Home Secretary [England, High Court, Queen's Bench Division.]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir John Thomas,Ouseley J |
| Judgment Date | 05 October 2012 |
| Date | 05 October 2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
England, High Court, Queen's Bench Division.
(Sir John Thomas, President of Division; Ouseley J)
Extradition Extradition Treaty between United Kingdom and United States of America United States seeking extradition of claimants from United Kingdom Prison conditions claimants would face at super-maximum security detention facility in United States Whether meeting requirements of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 European Court of Human Rights deciding extradition compatible with Article 3 of European Convention Claimants seeking to prevent extradition Claimants seeking review of decision of European Court of Human Rights Individual challenges of claimants
Human rights Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Prison conditions at super-maximum security detention facility in United States Whether incompatible with Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 European Court of Human Rights deciding prison conditions compatible with Article 3 of European Convention Whether European Court of Human Rights misunderstanding evidence about prison conditions Whether mistaking length of time that those subject to special administrative measures could serve in solitary confinement in prison's Special Security Unit Whether European Court of Human Rights should have accepted claimants' evidence on issue Whether European Court acting unfairly in refusing to admit claimants' evidence responding to United Kingdom Government evidence Whether trial fair Whether violation of Article 6 of European Convention or other fundamental principles of justice Whether extradition of claimants by United Kingdom to United States contravening European Convention on Human Rights, 1950
Relationship of international law and municipal law International tribunals European Court of Human Rights' decision Effect in United Kingdom law Section 2 of Human Rights Act 1998 Whether English court having reason to depart from decision of European Court Whether European Court erring in its decision Whether analysis clear and cogent Decision of Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights not to refer case Relevance Whether prison conditions incompatible with Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 The law of England
Summary:2The facts: The claimants3 were the subject of extradition requests by the United States of America where they were wanted to stand trial for terrorism-related offences. Following the rejection of the claimants' challenges to extradition by United Kingdom courts, the claimants applied to the European Court of Human Rights (the European Court), which dismissed their case (155 ILR 219). The claimants then challenged the Secretary of State's refusal to delay or prevent their surrender to the United States, applying for permission to apply for judicial review or for a re-opening of the statutory appeals.
The claimants, except Mr Hamza,4 contended that the prison conditions that they would face at the super-maximum security detention facility, ADX Florence,5 if extradited and convicted would be incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 (the Convention).6 They argued that reconsideration of this issue was necessary since the European Court had misunderstood the evidence about conditions at ADX Florence, in particular mistaking the length of time that those subject to special administrative measures (SAMs) could serve in solitary confinement in the Special Security Unit. They contended that the European Court should have accepted their evidence on that issue. They also maintained that the European Court had acted unfairly, breaching Article 6 of the Convention, in refusing to admit their evidence responding to United Kingdom Government evidence.
Held: The claimants' applications were dismissed.
(1) The claimants had long exhausted all procedures to prevent their extradition to the United States. There was an overwhelming public interest for extradition arrangements to function properly and for extradition treaties to be honoured. It was also in the interests of justice that those accused of such serious crimes be tried speedily. Finality in litigation was particularly important in extradition cases where international obligations had to be adhered to. All issues had to be raised promptly (paras. 1926).
(2) In all the circumstances, in light of the European Court decision, there was no justification for re-opening the prison conditions issue. The European Court had not erred in its judgment. Its conclusion was justified given its careful consideration of evidence and detailed analysis of the length of time a person would spend in the differing ADX Florence conditions. The hearing had been fair; the Court had not violated Article 6 of the Convention.
(a) The European Court had not misunderstood the evidence about conditions at ADX Florence; it had not mistaken the length of time that those subject to SAMs could serve in solitary confinement in the Special Security Unit. This was clear from the way in which the European Court had set out the evidence and from the detailed description of the evidence. It had been mindful of the distinction between the General Population and Special Security Units and the progressions in each. Its careful elucidation of facts reflected the evidence before it. The minor error in paragraph 96 of its judgment did not vitiate this conclusion (paras. 2858).
(b) Given the general principles set out by the European Court and the evidence before it, there was no basis for contending that it should have reached a different conclusion. The European Court had examined in detail the periods of time likely to be spent in the differing conditions of restricted confinement as part of either the General Population or Special Security Unit Programmes (paras. 5961).
(c) The European Court had not violated Article 6 of the Convention or other fundamental principles of justice in not receiving the claimants' further material. It had its reasons for reaching its decision even if they were not explained. Its decision was explicable on three distinct bases: evidence exchange had to end at some stage, the further material analysed evidence already available and the statistical data of which it was comprised could not be verified (paras. 625).
(d) Given the importance of the decision to the United Kingdom Government and extradition arrangements in general, the decision of the Grand Chamber not to refer the case was significant (paras. 668).
(e) The European Court's decision was not binding under United Kingdom law in light of Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998; it merely had to be taken into account. There was, however, no reason to depart from its decision that there was no breach of Article 3 of the Convention; the analysis was clear and cogent (paras. 6971).
(3) The claimants' individual challenges were dismissed.
(a) The Secretary of State had no basis on which she could have lawfully exercised her discretion to withdraw the extradition order against Mr Al Fawaz (paras. 7297).
(b) There had been no material change in Mr Bary's circumstances given that his illness was long-standing and given the European Court's decision in relation to the psychiatric facilities at ADX Florence (paras. 98118).
(c) Mr Hamza's extradition would not be unjust or oppressive. If he was unfit to plead due to sleep deprivation and physical conditions in the United Kingdom prison, he could be treated in the United States. If he was unfit to plead due to an emerging degenerative brain condition, he had best be tried quickly. There was no material circumstantial change so as to render his extradition unlawful or in breach of Convention rights (paras. 11946).
(d) Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan's extradition would not disproportionately interfere with their Article 8 Convention rights concerning respect for family and private life (paras. 147207).
(4) The claimants' extradition could proceed immediately (para. 208).
The following is the text of the judgment of the Court, delivered by Sir John Thomas:
1. Each of the five Claimants is the subject of an extradition request issued by the Government of the United States of America in order that each of them may stand trial in that country for terrorism-related offences. Each has brought separate claims for judicial review and for stays of their extradition, raising different issues in each case, except for an issue common to four of them relating to the prison conditions they would experience at ADX Florence, Colorado.
2. These proceedings are the latest and, if we refuse permission, the last, in a lengthy process of appeals and applications that has continued for some eight years in the case of two and six, thirteen and fourteen years in the case of three. The background procedural facts of each individual may briefly be summarised as follows.
3. Al Fawaz's extradition was requested in September 1998, some fourteen years ago. The District Judge ruled on 8 September 1999 that his extradition could proceed. His appeal to the High Court by way of an application for a writ of habeas corpus was rejected on 30 November 2000.
4. Abdel Bary's extradition was requested in July 1999. The District Judge ruled on 25 April 2000 that his extradition could proceed. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 2 May 2000.
5. Both of those proceedings are governed by the old law applicable under the Extradition Act 1989.
6. Both Al Fawaz and Abdel Bary appealed to the House of Lords where their appeal was dismissed on 17 December 2001, with the court finding that the Claimants were liable to extradition to the United States on the existence of a prima facie case of conspiracy to murder, of which the most terrible manifestation was the bombing of two US Embassies in East Africa,in which over 200 people were...
To continue reading
Request your trial