Jason Platt v The High Court of the Republic of Ireland

Hearing date: 19 June 2024

Introduction

This is an appeal against an order for the extradition of the Appellant which was made by District Judge Sternberg on 30 June 2023 after a hearing at the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 5 June 2023.

The Appellant is the subject of an accusation arrest warrant (“the Arrest Warrant”) which was issued by the High Court in Ireland on 4 October 2021 under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom, and certified by the National Crime Agency on 22 April 2022 under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. He faces eight charges which arise out of a claim for damages for personal injury which he brought in the Irish High Court. In summary:

i) There is one charge of attempting to commit deception, contrary to common law, between 4 August 2010 and 5 June 2015 (“Offence 1” on the Arrest Warrant);

ii) There is one charge of dishonestly providing false and misleading evidence in an affidavit dated 30 April 2015, contrary to section 14(5) of the Civil Liabilities and Courts Act 2004 (“Offence 3”); and

iii) There are six charges of dishonestly giving or causing false and misleading evidence to be given, contrary to section 25(1) of the 2004 Act (“Offences 2 and 4 to 8”). Offence 4 relates to evidence which the Appellant himself gave at the High Court in Dublin on 5 and 9 June 2015 in support of his personal injury claim, and Offences 2 and 5–8 concern evidence which he gave to medical experts and an occupational therapist in January and June 2015.

Offence 1 carries a maximum sentence of 5 years' imprisonment. The other offences each carry a maximum of up to 10 years.

At the hearing before the District Judge the Appellant put forward two grounds for resisting extradition. These were that, pursuant to section 21A(1)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003, it would be incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) for him to be extradited. Secondly, it would also be unjust and oppressive given his physical and mental health, contrary to section 25 of the 2003 Act. However, the Perfected Grounds of Appeal limit the issue on appeal to the challenge under Article 8.

The appeal, as pleaded, is founded on two factual propositions which, it is said, the District Judge failed or failed sufficiently to recognise:

i) First, “Detention of [the Appellant's partner] under the Mental Health Act 1983 is a virtually certain consequence of the Appellant's extradition”; (“Proposition 1”) and

ii) Second, “There is a real risk that public mental health services will fail to ensure that [the Appellant's partner] does not commit suicide or carry out acts of serious self-harm in the event of the Appellant's extradition” (“Proposition 2”).

Mr Joyes' case, framed in terms of section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, is that the District Judge ought to have made findings to this effect. If he had done so, the balancing exercise in relation to the proportionality of extraditing the Appellant would have come down in his favour and the District Judge would have been required to discharge the Appellant on the grounds that to do otherwise would be contrary to Article 8 ECHR.

Permission was granted by Farbey J on the papers on 6 February 2024 although the Appellant's application dated 1 August 2023 to admit fresh evidence was refused, as was permission to advance arguments at [33]–[39] of the Perfected Grounds which were based on that evidence. That application was, however, renewed before me and there was a further application, dated 5 June 2024, to admit fresh evidence which was not before Farbey J. In his oral submissions, Mr Joyes also raised a third ground of challenge, namely that the District Judge had failed to ask himself whether the degree of hardship which the Appellant and his partner would suffer in the event of his extradition was exceptional.

Explanation of the charges to which the Arrest Warrant relates

The Appellant is a British citizen who is now aged 52. He has no previous convictions. His relationship with his partner, Ms Christine McKenna, began in 2005 and they have lived together in St Helens since 2007. She has a son from a previous relationship.

On 15 February 2009, the Appellant and Ms McKenna were on holiday in Ireland when he fell from a window of the Old Bank House Hotel in Kinsale, County Cork, and landed on a roof below. He was taken to Cork University Hospital where he was treated for fractures to his right femur and to his ribs, and a punctured lung. He underwent an operation to his right thigh and was subsequently transferred to Whiston Hospital in Merseyside where he developed complications which required a period in intensive care, and the installation of a chest drain. It is not in dispute that his injuries were initially life threatening and that he will never fully recover from them. As a result of his physical injuries, he also developed psychological problems.

On 3 March 2011, the Appellant submitted a personal injury summons in the High Court in Dublin, issuing proceedings against the company which operated the Hotel, OBH Luxury Accommodation Limited (“OBH”). He claimed that as a result of his injuries he was unable to live independently and was very much dependent on Ms McKenna for assistance. In replies to particulars delivered on the 13 September 2011, the Appellant's condition was said to have deteriorated. It was said that he was unable to keep medical appointments, that he had been referred to a pain clinic and that he required two crutches to stand and a significant amount of assistance to mobilise. It was also asserted that his disabilities were such that he required two carers to attend him four times each day.

By the time of the trial, the claim was for damages in the order of 2.35 million euros pursuant to a schedule of loss which the Appellant verified by an affidavit dated 30 April 2015. This affidavit therefore confirmed that his injuries and impairments were such that he had required and would continue to require substantial personal care and support, various aids and equipment and adapted accommodation.

The claim was tried over a period of 7 days in June 2015 before Barton J. The witnesses included the Appellant, Ms McKenna who gave evidence in support of his claim, and various expert witnesses who gave evidence about the severity of his impairments and the continuing care and support which he would require. In his evidence the Appellant claimed that he was in severe pain and that his symptoms were worsening. He described himself as having been destroyed and in agony for about 21 hours a day and said that the pains in his legs were akin to what might be expected following electrocution. He said that he was only able to mobilise using either crutches, a wheelchair or a commode and that he had to use the commode to get to the front door of his house. He was essentially housebound and spent most of his time lying in bed because of the pain. He had not been able to take a shower or a bath for 6.5 years because of his mobility issues and he needed assistance with washing. He had a mobility scheme car which he could use to go the shops, the chemist or to his medical appointments and otherwise in the case of an emergency. Whilst in court, he presented as a profoundly disabled person who sat in a wheelchair, sometimes in a semi-reclined position. The Appellant also demonstrated physical difficulty when moving into the witness box from his wheelchair with the assistance of crutches.

Unfortunately for the Appellant, OBH's insurers had carried out video surveillance on him on seven occasions between March 2014 and March 2015. The footage from this surveillance was played to the Court after he had finished giving evidence. It showed the Appellant walking to and from his car on several occasions without crutches and without the assistance of Ms McKenna, albeit with a significant limp. On one occasion he could be seen moving rapidly when walking across the road between moving traffic and, on another, wheeling a shopping trolley around a Tesco store without any apparent difficulty. On a number of occasions he is seen driving his car, and he is shown raising his right arm overhead to close the boot of his car in a brisk and fluid movement.

The video footage also showed that, on 6 May 2014, when the Appellant saw the defendants' orthopaedic consultant, Mr Pennie, he walked from his house to his car carrying his crutches but not using them. When he arrived for his appointment, however, he used his crutches and moved in a highly laborious and slow fashion after he had got out of his car.

On the 6 January 2015, the Appellant flew to Ireland for a medical examination with Professor Phillips, the defendants' neurosurgeon, which took place on 7 January 2015. On the video footage he can be seen leaving his home without the assistance of crutches. When he arrived in Dublin, however, he was mobilised in a wheelchair and taken to his appointment by ambulance. The Appellant's physical presentation in the course of the examination with Professor Phillips was such that the Professor felt that he had to examine him whilst he remained in his wheelchair. Later that evening, however, the Appellant was seen moving around without the aid of crutches. The following day, on arrival back in England, he required to be mobilised at the airport in a wheelchair....