UK court docket hears Nirav Modi extradition attraction on psychological well being grounds

The High Court in London on Tuesday heard Nirav Modi’s attraction on the grounds of his psychological well being towards extradition to India to face costs of fraud and cash laundering, amounting to an estimated USD 2 billion within the Punjab National Bank (PNB) mortgage rip-off case.
Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay presided over the listening to on the Royal Courts of Justice to find out whether or not District Judge Sam Goozee’s February ruling in favour of extradition was incorrect to miss the diamond service provider’s “high risk of suicide”.
The court docket heard of a further assurance from the Indian authorities on November 13, which reiterates earlier commitments of satisfactory specialist medical care and an ambulance at hand had been Nirav to be extradited to Mumbai.
The listening to concluded with a timetable to wrap up the attraction within the New Year, as Nirav’s defence workforce had been granted time till Monday to submit their queries on India’s assurance from final month.
The Indian authorities will then have till December 23 to reply, with a January 4, 2022, deadline set for the defence workforce to revert, following which a listening to date will likely be agreed to progress in the direction of a ruling on the attraction.
“He is at high risk of suicide already and his condition is likely to deteriorate further in Mumbai,” Edward Fitzgerald QC argued as he opened the attraction on behalf of Nirav Modi – who stays behind bars at Wandsworth Prison in south-west London since his arrest in March 2019.
Fitzgerald went on to put out earlier than the two-judge bench that the Indian authorities assurances of medical help at Barrack 12 of Mumbai Central Prison on Arthur Road, the place the accused is to be held on being extradition, wouldn’t be satisfactory given the “certainty” of decay in his psychological well being. He additionally sought an adjournment in view of the brief time frame to review the brand new assurance from India, acquired final month.
The judges referred to the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who lately misplaced his extradition attraction towards the US authorities, on the subject of India’s “sovereign assurances” falling inside an analogous vein.
The listening to on Tuesday follows a ruling in August from High Court Justice Martin Chamberlain that arguments regarding the 50-year-old’s “severe depression” and “high risk of suicide” had been debatable at a full attraction listening to.
A bunch of Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers had flown in from India for the case, which was introduced in court docket by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) barrister Helen Malcolm QC on behalf of the Indian authorities.
The attraction towards Judge Goozee’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruling to ship the case to the Home Secretary was granted go away to attraction within the High Court on two grounds – underneath Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to listen to arguments if it might “unjust or oppressive” to extradite Nirav as a consequence of his psychological state and Section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003, additionally associated to psychological in poor health well being.
Nirav’s “high risk of suicide” and the “adequacy of any measures capable of preventing successful suicide attempts in Arthur Road prison” had been deemed because the focal factors for the attraction.
Nirav’s authorized workforce have sought to determine that it might be oppressive to extradite him as a consequence of his psychological situation that would result in suicidal impulses, given the household historical past of suicide of his mom, and that he’s prone to “flagrant denial of justice” in India. The attorneys have additionally claimed the COVID-19 pandemic is “overwhelming” the Indian jail system.
The CPS, on behalf of India, has highlighted the “high level of diplomatic assurance” to offer satisfactory medical consideration to the accused on being extradited to face trial in India.
At a distant “renewal application” listening to in August, the permission to attraction was denied on all different grounds, together with the admissibility of proof offered by the ED and CBI and towards UK Home Secretary Priti Patel’s extradition order. The High Court additionally famous that the District Judge’s method to the identification of a prima facie case within the PNB fraud case was “correct”.
Nirav is the topic of two units of felony proceedings, with the CBI case regarding a large-scale fraud upon PNB via the fraudulent acquiring of letters of enterprise (LoUs) or mortgage agreements, and the ED case regarding the laundering of the proceeds of that fraud.
He additionally faces two further costs of “causing the disappearance of evidence” and intimidating witnesses or “criminal intimidation to cause death”, which had been added to the CBI case.
If Nirav wins this attraction listening to within the High Court, he can’t be extradited except the Indian authorities is profitable in getting permission to attraction on the Supreme Court on a degree of legislation of public significance.
On the flip aspect, if he loses this attraction listening to, Nirav can method the Supreme Court on a degree of legislation of public significance, to be utilized for to the Supreme Court towards the High Court’s choice inside 14 days of a High Court verdict.
However, this includes a excessive threshold as appeals to the Supreme Court can solely be made if the High Court has licensed that the case includes a degree of legislation of basic public significance.
Finally, in spite of everything avenues within the UK courts are exhausted, the diamantaire may nonetheless search a so-called Rule 39 injunction from the European Court of Human Rights.