Koc v Turkish Judicial Authority

Koc v Turkish Judicial Authority

The appellant was not deliberately absent from his trial as he was not notified of the 2008 trial dates, did not waive his rights, and there was no manifest lack of diligence. There was culpable delay of at least 8 years by the Turkish authorities, and the appellant was not a fugitive as he was under no obligation to remain or notify authorities. The hardship to the appellant's family, particularly due to the severe mental health issues of his stepdaughter and wife, and the changes in circumstances during the passage of time, made extradition oppressive. Extradition would also violate the Article 8 ECHR rights of the family. The appellant's mental health condition did not meet the...

Parties
Appellant: Ibrahim Koc; Respondent: Turkish Judicial Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; extradition order quashed; appellant discharged.
Legal Topics
Extradition, Deliberate Absence From Trial, Passage of Time Bar, Article 8 ECHR, Mental Health and Extradition, Family Hardship, Culpable Delay
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Extradition Deliberate Absence From Trial Passage of Time Bar Article 8 ECHR Mental Health and Extradition +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ibrahim Koc

Appellant

Turkish Judicial Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant deliberately absented himself from his trial under section 85 of the Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether extradition is barred by reason of the passage of time under section 82 of the Extradition Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights to private and family life

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not deliberately absent from his trial as he was not notified of the 2008 trial dates, did not waive his rights, and there was no manifest lack of diligence. There was culpable delay of at least 8 years by the Turkish authorities, and the appellant was not a fugitive as he was under no obligation to remain or notify authorities. The hardship to the appellant's family, particularly due to the severe mental health issues of his stepdaughter and wife, and the changes in circumstances during the passage of time, made extradition oppressive. Extradition would also violate the Article 8 ECHR rights of the family. The appellant's mental health condition did not meet the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; extradition order quashed; appellant discharged.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed, the appellant is discharged and the order for extradition is quashed pursuant to s.104(1)(a) and s.105 of the Extradition Act 2003.
  • No order for costs of the appeal before this Court.