Lomas v Republic of South Africa & Anor (No. 2) [2024] EWHC 731 (Admin) (27 March 2024)

Lomas v Republic of South Africa & Anor (No. 2) [2024] EWHC 731 (Admin) (27 March 2024)

The evidence does not, even arguably, establish that extradition would be unjust or oppressive under s.91 or create a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR. The practical arrangements (medical practitioner, wheelchair, medical facility) are sufficient to mitigate risks. There is no basis for permission to appeal or adjournment. The Secretary of State has no relevant function; the NCA arranges surrender.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 731 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Michael Lomas; First Respondent: Republic of South Africa; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal (part 2, Non Eu) / Permission to Appeal (reopened) – Fitness to Fly Issue
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Fitness to Fly, Article 3 ECHR, Section 91 Extradition Act 2003, Oppression, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Judicial Function in Extradition, Role of Public Authorities in Extradition
Extradition Human Rights Administrative Law Fitness to Fly Article 3 ECHR Section 91 Extradition Act 2003 Oppression Inhuman or Degrading Treatment +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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Lomas

Appellant

Republic of South Africa

First Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal (part 2, Non Eu) / Permission to Appeal (reopened) – Fitness to Fly Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's physical and mental health render extradition unjust or oppressive under s.91 Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether extradition would create a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR due to fitness to fly
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State or NCA has a decision-making function regarding fitness to fly in Part 2 extradition cases

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence does not, even arguably, establish that extradition would be unjust or oppressive under s.91 or create a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR. The practical arrangements (medical practitioner, wheelchair, medical facility) are sufficient to mitigate risks. There is no basis for permission to appeal or adjournment. The Secretary of State has no relevant function; the NCA arranges surrender.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal on s.91 and Article 3 grounds refused
  • No adjournment granted