Turner v Government of the USA

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a UK citizen aged 42, is the Requested Person in an extradition case initiated by a US Government request. The extradition request arises from a charge of causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence, following a fatal accident in Florida on 9 October 2005. The Plaintiff was arrested in the UK on 8 November 2010 and challenged the extradition request on grounds including passage of time and ill-health. A hearing before District Judge Purdy on 12 April 2011 resulted in the judge rejecting the Plaintiff's challenges and sending the case to the Secretary of State, who ordered extradition on 28 June 2011.

The Plaintiff appealed the District Judge's decision pursuant to section 103(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, relying on new evidence not available at the original hearing. The appeal contends that there is a substantial risk the Plaintiff would commit suicide if extradited, thus making extradition oppressive under section 91(2) of the Act.

The appeal proceedings involved multiple hearings and the submission of psychiatric reports, including from Dr Gwilym Hayes, a forensic psychiatrist, whose reports detail the Plaintiff's depressive illness and suicide risk. The Plaintiff made a serious suicide attempt during the appeal process, leading to further assessment and hospitalization as a voluntary psychiatric patient.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether new evidence relating to the Plaintiff's mental health and suicide risk, not available at the original extradition hearing, should be admitted on appeal under section 104(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Whether the Plaintiff's physical or mental condition is such that extradition would be unjust or oppressive under section 91(2) of the Act, specifically considering the risk of suicide.
3. Whether, if the new evidence had been before the District Judge, he would have decided the extradition hearing differently, leading to the Plaintiff's discharge.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff suffers from a recognised psychiatric condition, including recurrent depressive illness and post-trauma symptoms, with a high and substantial risk of suicide linked causatively to the extradition proceedings.
• The Plaintiff's mental health would deteriorate if extradited, increasing the likelihood of suicide.
• Existing measures in the UK and USA are insufficient to mitigate the suicide risk effectively.
• Extradition would be oppressive due to the Plaintiff's ill-health, warranting discharge under section 91(3) of the Act.

Respondent's Arguments

• The risk of suicide, while acknowledged during a "danger period" between appeal dismissal and extradition, is not sufficiently great to render extradition oppressive.
• Authorities in both the UK and USA have appropriate procedures and facilities to manage the Plaintiff's mental health and suicide risk.
• The Plaintiff does not have a general disposition to commit suicide; the risk is situational and manageable.
• The Plaintiff's fears regarding trial fairness in Florida lack evidential basis and are irrational.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the admissibility of new evidence under section 104(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. It accepted the psychiatric reports submitted by the Plaintiff, finding them independent, convincing, and not previously available at the original hearing. The court applied the test from Fenyvesi, requiring the new evidence to be "decisive" such that the District Judge would have decided differently.

The court examined the Plaintiff's mental health condition, noting a recurrent depressive illness, post-trauma symptoms, and a high risk of suicide linked to the extradition proceedings. The Plaintiff's suicide attempt was considered a serious and rational act but was not found to demonstrate a mental incapacity to resist the impulse to commit suicide.

The court considered the risk of suicide in the context of available risk management measures in both the UK and Florida, concluding that appropriate facilities and procedures exist to mitigate this risk. The court also noted that the Plaintiff remains rational and that the suicide risk arises from the extradition process itself rather than an underlying mental incapacity.

Balancing the Plaintiff's mental health risks against the public interest in fulfilling treaty obligations, the court found that the threshold for oppression under section 91 was not met. The court emphasized that the Plaintiff's mental condition, while fragile, did not remove her capacity to resist suicidal impulses and that the extradition would not be unjust or oppressive on this basis.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff's appeal against extradition.

The direct effect of this decision is that the extradition order stands and the Plaintiff remains subject to extradition to the United States. The court found no basis to bar extradition on grounds of ill-health or suicide risk under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003. No new legal precedent was established; the decision applies existing high thresholds for mental health-related bars to extradition and confirms that a substantial risk of suicide must be linked to a mental incapacity removing the ability to resist suicidal impulses to render extradition oppressive.