R Boujetiff v Public Prosecutor'S Office of Court of Appeal, Brussels, Belgium
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ouseley |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2658 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/276/2014 |
| Date | 30 June 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 2658 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Ouseley
CO/276/2014
Mr Ben Lloyd (instructed by The DPP Law) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Miss Rachel Scott (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal against a decision of District Judge Evans on 25 January 2014 at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court whereby he ordered the appellant's extradition to Belgium on a conviction European arrest warrant for him to serve a sentence of five years imposed for an offence of drug trafficking committed in August 2011.
The appellant was convicted in his absence only in the sense that he was not present, but he was represented at the trial by a lawyer of his choosing who represented him through to sentence. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking unsuccessfully an adjournment of the appeal in order that he might attend it and he appealed to the Supreme Court. His appeals were unsuccessful. The trial took place early in 2012.
The appellant contended before the district judge that he had been at the time of trial unfit to plead. The judge heard psychiatric evidence on the appellant's behalf from Dr O'Mara and on behalf of the requesting authority from Dr Cumming. Although there were considerable areas of agreement, there was a significant area of disagreement concerning whether the appellant was feigning a significant portion of his symptoms. Dr Cumming thought that he was and Dr O'Mara thought not. There is no doubt that the appellant's mental health has been affected over the years since his childhood by an event in his childhood, subsequently by his taking of drugs and the degree to which his mother is over-protective of him, taking too many decisions on his behalf.
The district judge preferred the evidence of Dr Cumming. He expressed his reasons shortly but they included the greater experience of Dr Cumming, his greater clarity and (to him) the greater sense of it. The judge also drew attention to the fact that the appellant's Belgian lawyer — again, who produced a statement — gave no evidence to suggest that there had been any difficulties in the receipt of instructions and that he had been unaware of any mental health problems.
Before this court, Mr Lloyd for the appellant contends that extradition would be oppressive by reason of the effect which extradition would have on the appellant's mental health. He puts his case this way. There is a real issue in which he relies upon the evidence of Dr O'Mara as to whether in early 2012 and at the time of sentencing the appellant was fit to plead. His mental problems were not raised either for the purposes of raising a fitness to plead argument before the Belgian courts or for the purposes of mitigating his non-attendance which appears to have aggravated to a modest degree his sentence, or for the purpose of setting the type of sentence which was imposed though it seems to me inevitable that it would be a custodial sentence. He says that the reasons given by the district judge for preferring the evidence of Dr Cumming are rather weak and he is critical of them. There were explanations as to why Avocat Boujet (the Belgian lawyer) might have concluded, as undoubtedly he did, that he was not aware that the appellant was suffering from any mental health difficulties, so the issue was not raised at any stage before the Belgian courts.
Mr Lloyd also points out that fitness to plead issues, when raised in an extradition case, are normally regarded as issues to be resolved by the courts of the requesting state (see Edwards v Government of United States of America [2013] EWHC 1906 Admin especially paragraphs 20, 30 and 36). Of course where someone resists extradition on an accusation warrant, the question of fitness to plead may be raised as a potential...
To continue reading
Request your trial