Lomas v Republic of South Africa

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 76, is subject to an extradition request to South Africa to face trial on 41 corruption charges related to alleged bribery between February 2015 and July 2017. The extradition request was issued on 23 February 2021, certified on 16 March 2021, and the Appellant was arrested on 15 April 2021 before being released on bail. Following a two-day oral hearing in October 2022, District Judge Sternberg sent the case to the Home Secretary, who ordered extradition on 30 January 2023. The Judge’s comprehensive 58-page judgment addressed multiple issues including Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003. Permission to appeal was initially refused by Heather Williams J on 1 December 2023, but the current court was tasked with reconsidering the arguability of the appeal based on all available evidence, including fresh medical reports.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there is a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.
2. Whether extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with private and family life under Article 8 ECHR.
3. Whether extradition would cause injustice or oppression due to the Appellant’s physical and/or mental condition pursuant to section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Judge failed to properly consider the interrelationship between the Appellant's physical and mental health conditions, leading to an inadequate overall assessment.
• The Judge erred in assessing the mental health risks, particularly regarding suicide risk and the relevance of prior suicide attempts as evidence of severe mental illness.
• The assurances regarding natural light and ventilation in the Appellant’s cell were not being fulfilled, undermining the Judge’s acceptance of these assurances.
• The Judge was wrong to conclude that the Appellant would not be subjected to de facto solitary confinement, given the conditions and limited meaningful human contact.
• The Appellant’s health has deteriorated since the original hearing, with new diagnoses of multilevel degenerative spine disease and cervical myelopathy, raising concerns about fitness to travel and the adequacy of medical care.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Judge properly considered both physical and mental health conditions in an integrated manner, including the totality of evidence and submissions.
• The Judge correctly applied the legal standards from Turner and other authorities regarding mental health and suicide risk, finding no evidence of incapacity to resist suicidal impulses.
• The assurances about cell conditions, including natural light and ventilation, remain valid and are not undermined by the new evidence.
• The Judge’s findings on the absence of solitary confinement were supported by evidence showing multiple inmates present and access to exercise, therapy, and contact with others.
• The new medical evidence does not fundamentally alter the Judge’s conclusions; the Appellant’s health conditions are manageable within the custodial setting with appropriate medical care available.
• The issue of fitness to fly was acknowledged but not contested as a ground for adjournment or appeal, with recognition that this would be assessed prior to extradition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Magiera v Poland [2017] EWHC 2757 (Admin)	Standards for assessing Article 3 ECHR risk of torture or inhuman treatment in extradition cases.	Used to frame the legal approach to Article 3 risk and to assess expert evidence on treatment conditions.
Turner v USA [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin)	Guidance on assessing mental health risks and suicide risk in extradition proceedings.	The Judge applied the principles at §28 to evaluate suicide risk and mental health evidence.
Vernon v South Africa [2014] EWHC 4417 (Admin)	Consideration of solitary confinement risks in extradition contexts.	Referenced in assessing whether the Appellant would face de facto solitary confinement.
Ahmad v UK (ECtHR, 10.4.12)	Interpretation of solitary confinement and meaningful human contact under Article 3 ECHR.	Considered in submissions regarding the Appellant’s detention conditions and human contact.
Arezina v Bosnia [2023] EWHC 1980 (Admin)	Procedural approach to fitness to fly issues in extradition appeals.	Mentioned as authority for adjournment related to fitness to fly, which was not sought here.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a thorough review of the Judge’s detailed and comprehensive judgment, including the extensive expert evidence and fresh medical reports. It addressed each of the Appellant’s headline points in turn:

• Interrelationship of Physical and Mental Health: The court found no arguable error in the Judge’s approach, which considered physical and mental health both separately and collectively, concluding all conditions could be managed appropriately in custody. The alleged conflict regarding cellmate arrangements was unfounded as the Judge did not rely on a cellmate to meet health needs.
• Mental Health and Suicide Risk: The court accepted the Judge’s application of Turner guidance and his findings that the Appellant’s mental health condition did not remove his capacity to resist suicidal impulses. The Judge’s confidence in the adequacy of monitoring and treatment arrangements was unchallenged on appeal.
• Light and Ventilation: The court found no evidence undermining the assurances given about cell conditions, including natural light and ventilation, and rejected the Appellant’s reliance on photographs as incompatible with those assurances.
• De Facto Solitary Confinement: The court found the Judge’s findings sustainable on the evidence, which showed multiple inmates present and opportunities for meaningful contact, exercise, and therapies. The assertion that the Appellant would be effectively isolated was not supported by the evidence.
• Health Deterioration and Fitness to Fly: The court rejected the argument that new medical evidence transformed the case or undermined the Judge’s conclusions. The Judge had considered frailty, falls, and blackouts, and found assurances adequate for ongoing management. The single statement of unfitness to fly was insufficient to support an arguable appeal, and no adjournment was sought for further evidence on this issue.

Overall, the court found no reasonably arguable grounds to challenge the Judge’s findings or to admit the fresh evidence as decisive.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the application for permission to appeal and formally refused permission to adduce the putative fresh evidence.

The direct effect of this decision is that the extradition order remains valid and enforceable, permitting the Appellant’s extradition to proceed. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling. The court made no order as to costs.