Michael Turner v Ireland

Michael Turner v Ireland

The application to adduce fresh psychiatric evidence was refused because the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the extradition hearing, and the appellant's legal team made a tactical decision not to seek an adjournment. Even if admitted, the evidence did not meet the high threshold for oppression under section 25, as it failed to show a substantial risk of suicide that could not be managed by the Irish authorities. The Article 8 ECHR challenge also failed as the new evidence would not have altered the balance struck by the District Judge.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Turner; Respondent: Ireland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extradition, European Arrest Warrant, Article 8 ECHR, Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Section 25 Extradition Act 2003, Fresh Evidence, Mental Health and Extradition
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Extradition European Arrest Warrant Article 8 ECHR Article 2 ECHR Article 3 ECHR +3 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Turner

Appellant

Ireland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh psychiatric evidence should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether extradition would be oppressive due to mental health (risk of suicide) under section 25 Extradition Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The application to adduce fresh psychiatric evidence was refused because the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the extradition hearing, and the appellant's legal team made a tactical decision not to seek an adjournment. Even if admitted, the evidence did not meet the high threshold for oppression under section 25, as it failed to show a substantial risk of suicide that could not be managed by the Irish authorities. The Article 8 ECHR challenge also failed as the new evidence would not have altered the balance struck by the District Judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to adduce fresh evidence refused
  • Extradition order affirmed