Terrorism suspect escapes extradition on health grounds

A sheriff has declined to issue an arrest warrant in extradition proceedings for a man “well known to the criminal authorities”, because of the poor health of the respondent.

Sheriff Frank Crowe at Edinburgh Sheriff Court made the decision in the case of a man referred to as SN, wanted by the authorities in the USA in connection with charges that alleged he had made more than 40 bomb threats to various institutions in Pittsburgh, between March and June 2012. SN had been extradited from Ireland to the UK in 2015 under a European arrest warrant on terrorism related charges including bomb hoaxes, but subsequently considered unfit to stand trial here.

Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2009, in August 2015 he was pronounced by psychiatrists to be unfit to stand trial. He had gone on hunger strike after being remanded in custody on his return from Ireland. However he presented as elderly, confused and disoriented. He had since deteriorated further, and now aged 71, he was also bedbound, doubly incontinent and required assistance with all aspects of daily living. He did not understand the charges.

The Lord Advocate, who sought the warrant on behalf of the US Government, had obtained assurances that should SN be extradited but found unfit to stand trial on those charges, he would be returned to the UK provided a court had so determined and that he should be released, and he was not eligible to remain in the USA.

Sheriff Crowe said it would be possible to proceed to a full hearing, but it seemed clear that SN's solicitor would have grounds for asserting that extradition would be oppressive under ss 79(1)(c) and 82, and certainly under ss 87 and 91 of the Extradition Act 2003. He recognised that the grant of an arrest warrant did not mean that an individual would necessarily be arrested, and also noted that at common law the issue of an arrest warrant might be oppressive, but said he had to look first to the provisions of the 2003 Act.

The circumstances were exceptional in that SN had been “well known to the criminal authorities in this jurisdiction for many years”, but suffered from a degenerative condition for which there was no cure.

He concluded: “To have granted the warrant would simply have been to authorise a charade, paying lip service to the procedural provisions of the 2003 Act, in the absence of SN, well knowing in light of the unchallenged reports produced to me that his condition is such that it would be unjust and oppressive to extradite him in view of his physical and mental condition...

“It is quite clear that seeking to issue a warrant in the present circumstances, given SN’s poor and precarious health, would place those seeking to enforce such a warrant under s 71(5) in an invidious, impractical and frankly impossible position. The assurances given by the requesting authority are quite proper in the circumstances but it seems clear a similar finding of unfitness inevitably would be made, were it possible and practicable to arrange the transfer of SN to the United States of America.”

Accordingly he exercised his discretion under s 71(2) of the 2003 Act and at common law not to issue a warrant for the arrest of SN.

Click here to view the sheriff's judgment.