High Court: Injurious and harmful consequences outweigh public interest in ordering woman’s extradition to US

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2018] IEHC 583
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly

Finding that the woman’s surrender to the US would be a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her personal and family life, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly said it would be unjust to extradite the woman in the unique and exceptional circumstances of the case.

Background

The United States of America sought the extradition of AB for the purpose of putting her on trial in respect of five alleged offences of drug trafficking and money laundering.

AB and her former husband (whose extradition from South Africa has been requested) were allegedly part of a criminal organisation that conspired to import anabolic steroids, human growth hormone (HGH) and misbranded prescription pills into the USA.

The drugs were distributed to purchasers in the USA who had ordered the drugs via internet websites operated by members of the organisation. AB, together with others, allegedly laundered the proceeds from the sale of those drugs.

In September 2012, AB was arrested in the UK pursuant to the USA’s request for extradition on the alleged offences.

AB was released on bail of £0.25m, and having exhausted all her appellate rights in the UK, AB did not surrender to the Metropolitan Police in June 2015 for the purpose of extradition.

Upon fleeing to Ireland, AB was arrested on 13 July 2015 following a US request for her provisional arrest, and she has been remanded in custody from that date. Combined with the time spent in custody in the UK, AB has spent almost three years and four months in custody in relation to the alleged offences.

High Court

Objecting to her extradition, AB submitted that:

• The offences did not correspond with offences in Ireland;
• Her extradition would create a real risk that she would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment due to substandard psychiatric care in US custodial institutions;
• Her right to respect for her personal and family life would be violated should she be extradited.

Firstly, Ms Justice Donnelly was satisfied that the Attorney General complied with the formal proofs for the purpose of the application for extradition.

Considering the correspondence of the offences, Ms Justice Donnelly was satisfied that:

• Count 1, the distribution of anabolic steroids without prescription, corresponded with the offence of illegally supplying medicinal products without a prescription contrary to Regulation 5(1) of the Medicinal Products (Prescription and Control of Supply) Regulations 2003 as amended.
• Count 2, the distribution and possession of HGH, also corresponded with Regulation 5(1) of the 2003 Regulations
• Count 3, the fraudulent and knowing import, etc. of HGH and other misbranded drugs also corresponded with Regulation 5 of the 2003 Regulations
• Counts 4 and 5 concerning money laundering corresponded with offences in this jurisdiction contrary to s. 7 of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010, and also contrary to s. 71(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.

Ms Justice Donnelly was also satisfied that the requirements of minimum gravity were met in respect of each offence.

Furthermore, Ms Justice Donnelly was not satisfied that AB’s extradition was prohibited under sections 15, 20 or 21 of the Extradition Act 1965

Fundamental rights issues

The main points of objection in AB’s case were based upon claims that her fundamental rights would be breached. AB claimed that her surrender would amount to a disproportionate interference with both her own and her daughter’s personal rights and family life contrary to Article 40 and 41 of the Constitution of Ireland, as well as Article 8 of the ECHR.

AB also claimed that her surrender would violate her right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment due to substandard medical and psychiatric treatments, or lack thereof, available in US detention facilities.

Ms Justice Donnelly said that the ‘factual basis for the claims were the proven; long-term, comorbid mental health conditions’ from which AB suffered, which have resulted in suicide attempts, self-harm, and an eating disorder. Ms Justice Donnelly explained that, due to being suicidal, AB has been on constant Special Observations while in custody.

Considering the personal and family circumstances of AB, Ms Justice Donnelly said that AB’s extradition to the USA would likely cause her mental state to deteriorate significantly. Furthermore, Ms Justice Donnelly said that AB’s daughter was ‘a child who has been damaged by the events which have occurred and will undoubtedly suffer should her mother be extradited and in particular should her mother’s ill health deteriorate’. 

Ms Justice Donnelly said that these ‘particularly powerful, persuasive family and personal factors’, had to be ‘weighed against the public interest’ in extraditing AB.

In this regard, Ms Justice Donnelly was satisfied that, even though the public interest in her extradition was otherwise high, AB was not sought for personal violence offences, she had served at least the minimum sentence, and she was not alleged to have been the main culprit.

Considering AB’s ‘truly exceptional’ personal and family circumstances, MS Justice Donnelly said that the ‘particularly injurious and harmful consequences of extradition on both this mentally ill respondent and her young daughter outweigh the public interest in her extradition’.

Stating that extradition would be unjust and a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for personal and family life, Ms Justice Donnelly refused to order AB’s extradition.

• by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News