Wright, Re Application for Judicial Review [2004] ScotCS 169 (09 July 2004)

Wright, Re Application for Judicial Review [2004] ScotCS 169 (09 July 2004)

The petitioner failed to establish a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR if extradited to Estonia, as medical facilities and arrangements were adequate and special measures would be taken. The interference with Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate in light of the legitimate objective of fulfilling international extradition obligations. The decision was not irrational and fell within the discretion afforded to the respondents.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 169
Parties
Petitioner: Robert Bruce Wright; Respondents: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused; decisions of the respondents upheld.
Legal Topics
Extradition, European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3 – Prohibition of Torture, Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Irrationality
Extradition Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Extradition European Convention on Human Rights Article 3 – Prohibition of Torture Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life Judicial Review +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 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Bruce Wright

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition of the petitioner to Estonia would violate Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment) due to risk to health and inadequate medical facilities.
  2. 2 Whether extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR (private and family life).
  3. 3 Whether the decision to extradite was irrational or one no reasonable minister could have reached.

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to establish a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR if extradited to Estonia, as medical facilities and arrangements were adequate and special measures would be taken. The interference with Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate in light of the legitimate objective of fulfilling international extradition obligations. The decision was not irrational and fell within the discretion afforded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Petition refused; decisions of the respondents upheld.

Orders

  • Reduction of the respondents' decisions refused.
  • Petitioner to be extradited to Estonia.