Boorman v Juzgado De Instruccion No.4 De Palma De Mallorca

I turn then to the main matter for today: Ms Linfield’s application that I should adjourn this hearing. She relies on the logistical difficulties that she and her instructing lawyer and her client have faced. She tells me they had hoped that material relevant to the appellant’s medical situation would be forthcoming. That all relates to what he described in his proof of evidence for the district judge hearing, as arising out of his three tours in Afghanistan. He explained that he had been seeing a doctor about his mental health and the appellant said, so far is that doctor is concerned: “I am showing signs of PTSD and this can be all traced back to having served in Afghanistan and having witness[ed] some shocking events including losing close friends are in combat”. The proof goes on and the appellant said in his evidence: “I feel that I now need professional help as I cannot continue to live like this”.

Before the district judge at the hearing there was an application to adjourn, to obtain medical evidence as to the PTSD. There had been two previous such applications dated 21 November 2019 and 6 December 2019. All three of those applications were refused by the various district judges. Indeed, the district judge’s refusal of an adjournment at the hearing, from the perspective of both a human rights argument focusing on article 8 and mental health condition as an extradition bar under section 25, was the subject of two grounds of appeal that were put before this court in the application for permission to appeal. A third ground of appeal was that the district judge had been wrong in relation to proportionality and article 8. The district judge dealt with the application for an adjournment before him by explaining: “I decline to allow an adjournment for a psychiatric report on behalf of the RP. There was no proper basis for this application”. He described it as “an entirely speculative endeavour by the legal representative for the RP to try and find a bar to his extradition”. The district judge went on to explain “even given that it may be shown that he had issues relating to PTSD I was fully confident and had mutual respect that the RJA could and would be able to deal appropriately manage his condition”.

Returning to the application before me, for an adjournment, in her written and oral submissions Ms Linfield explained that there had been attempts which had failed for various reasons to visit the appellant, but that she and her solicitor had then attended on 3 March 2020 to take instructions. Pausing there, when the appellant’s solicitor emailed the court on 27 March 2020, inviting an adjournment of this case on the papers, reference was made to logistical difficulties that are preventing the proper preparation of Mr Boorman’s case “including being unable to meet with him at HMP Wandsworth to take his instructions”. That is not a matter that has been advanced before me. On the contrary, the court is now told that at it was possible both to meet with the appellant and to take his instructions and that that happened on 3 March 2020.

In written submissions the court was told that “the notes” had as yet been unavailable.

Finally, so far as the adjournment application is concerned, reliance was also placed on the circumstances now rising as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. What was

I am quite satisfied that there is nothing in either of those aspects that could justify an adjournment in the interests of justice. I will return to article 2 and article 3 and risks on extradition when I make observations about the substantive appeal because that was the one point advanced in all submissions today in support of permission to appeal. But, so far as an adjournment is concerned, I am not persuaded that there is any proper basis for adjourning to allow the development of matters, or information about that to be put subsequently before this court. So far as section 21B and interviewing the appellant is concerned the district judge recorded in his judgment that the foreign authorities had ‘already rejected the 21B request’ and there was ‘no possibility of the RGA taking a less coercive measure falling short of an extradition’. That was a matter before the district judge, because of the way that the case was being put. As it was put in this morning’s note to me, on behalf of the appellant it was argued before the district judge that ‘it would be disproportionate to extradite the applicant taking into account the less coercive measures available’. In my judgment, it wholly speculative and wholly insufficient for the appellant to say that in the current circumstances the Spanish authorities ‘may’ take a different course. On the state of the evidence before me there is no realistic prospect of that. All of the communications by the authorities reinforce the position as it was before the district judge. The latest dated 21^st January 2020 confirms that surrender is ‘absolutely necessary’ and the urgency of that surrender. But even if there were anything in the point, so far as what the Spanish authorities ‘may’ in the current circumstances be willing to countenance, that is a matter for the Spanish authorities to consider in the circumstances where extradition flights are not taking place. There is no reason at all why I should adjourn this appeal with a view to their considering that matter. The idea that they might ‘unreasonably’ make a decision, which could then ground an appeal, is wholly insufficient as well as wholly speculative.

Therefore, and in all the circumstances of this case about which I will need to say a little more, I am quite satisfied that the this court needs to take the same robust approach to adjournment as was taken below by the various district judges.

That leaves the application for permission to appeal. There were three grounds of appeal, as I have I have identified. Ms Linfield was given various opportunities at this hearing to advance any submissions that she would wish to make in support of permission to appeal. She accepted that in relation to those grounds there was nothing

One submission was advanced by Ms Linfield at this hearing, arising out of the current pandemic. She submitted that in an extraordinary and fast moving situation the court should be sufficiently concerned about the human rights article 2 and article 3 considerations as to grant permission to appeal on the basis that full argument on an appeal could then be advanced on the question of real risk of the relevant harm should the appellant be extradited into the Spanish custodial system under the current pandemic circumstances. I am quite satisfied that there is no proper basis for granting permission to appeal on that ground. It is a wholly new ground not the subject even an application to amend the grounds of appeal. But I do not refuse it for that reason. I would have wished anxiously to consider any truly viable article 2 or article 3

Reference was made by Ms Linfield to the power of which the court has to reopen an appeal under criminal procedure rules 50.27. I mention it so as to record that I have taken into account that, in a situation where it is necessary because of some new development to reopen a decision to avoid a real injustice in circumstances which are exceptional, that is a course which is open.

Turning then to what this case was to be about, the application for permission to appeal that was made and then renewed for this hearing raised the grounds that the district judge had erred in refusing the requested adjournment for medical evidence to be elicited or had erred in relation to the article 8 proportionality balance. Permission to appeal was refused, as I have said, on the papers. In the light of the position taken at this hearing by Ms Linfield, who does not seek to advance any further submission nor is any submission developing any of these grounds to be found in any document, it suffices for me to say this:

This is an urgent and troubling case. An accusation warrant dated 26 September 2019, relating to an incident on 4 September 2019, constitutes an urgent request for the surrender of the appellant. Two co-defendants have already been returned, they having been located in Bulgaria. The courts of this jurisdiction have been told by the requesting judicial authorities that the appellant’s ‘physical presence’ is ‘urgently needed’. This is because a trial is envisaged of all three co-defendants and the other two are currently in Spain and on remand. I have already described the circumstances, so far as the applications for an adjournment is concerned.

I am quite satisfied that there is no reasonably arguable ground of appeal that the district judge was wrong to refuse to adjourn the hearing before him. I am also satisfied that the district judge dealt properly and lawfully, and indeed correctly, with the position so far as what medical evidence as to PTSD would and could have shown in the circumstances of the present case. I am also satisfied that there is no reasonably arguable ground for impugning the district judge’s assessment of article 8 proportionality and justification. He recorded that the balance ‘fell heavily in favour of ordering extradition’ in this case. He recognised the impacts that extradition would necessarily cause. He carried out the necessary balancing required by the article 8 case law. For all those reasons I am satisfied that there is no reasonably arguable ground on the legal merits.