Michael Lomas v Republic of South Africa

Michael Lomas v Republic of South Africa

The evidence relating to the appellant's health and risks from flying does not, even arguably, satisfy the threshold for oppression under s.91 or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR. Practical arrangements and precautions are sufficient. The court's function is limited to applying the legal prism, not conducting a freestanding fitness to fly assessment.

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
24 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Permission to Appeal After Reopening Under Crim PR 50.27
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Fitness to Fly, Article 3 ECHR, Extradition Act 2003 S.91, Oppression, Procedural Roles of Authorities
Extradition Human Rights Administrative Law Fitness to Fly Article 3 ECHR Extradition Act 2003 S.91 Oppression Procedural Roles of Authorities

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 4 Authorities cited 21 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 / Permission to Appeal After Reopening Under Crim PR 50.27

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's physical and mental health render extradition unjust or oppressive under s.91 of the Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether extradition would expose the appellant to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the court or public authorities have a freestanding function to assess fitness to fly

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence relating to the appellant's health and risks from flying does not, even arguably, satisfy the threshold for oppression under s.91 or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR. Practical arrangements and precautions are sufficient. The court's function is limited to applying the legal prism, not conducting a freestanding fitness to fly assessment.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No adjournment granted.
  • No further directions issued.