London: Nirav Modi‘s extradition The hearing of the billionaire diamond merchant’s second appeal was delayed again in India on Tuesday after his barrister raised fresh objections.
The gist of the appeal hearing – now delayed to October – will be about what is likely to be done by Nirav suicidal If extradited and thus whether it would be repressive to extradite him. Expert psychiatrists from both the sides will be brought in for cross-examination.
District Judge Goozie determined in the trial court that Nirav lacked the ability to resist the urge to commit suicide and thus was not coercive to extradite him. But on Tuesday, Edward Fitzgerald, representing Nirav, argued in the High Court that it was a “false test”, saying Goozy had mistakenly believed the risk of suicide to be imminent in order to be repressive. He also said that the Indian government’s argument that Nirav would “get better” in an Indian prison was distorted and without any evidence, and that Delhi’s assurances about Nirav’s prison conditions were “extremely flawed”.
“The fact of extradition will bring depression. We say that decreases his ability to resist the impulse to commit suicide,” Fitzgerald said.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Justice J also allowed Nirav access to private healthcare at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, allowing the appeal to be debated. Fitzgerald had said that Delhi’s assurances about access to private treatment at Arthur Road Jail, Mumbai, “are absolutely not guaranteed as it all depends on whether the doctors at Mumbai’s JJ Hospital allow it”. .
Helen MalcolmRepresenting the Indian government, said Nirav would get private treatment if he really needed it, but could not call a private doctor “every time he had a cold”.
The judges also ruled that the evidence of former Bombay High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog would be allowed in the appeal hearing. Nandrajog argues that the Indian government cannot give assurances on behalf of any Indian state about his prison status.
But the judges did not allow the case to be sent back to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court as Fitzgerald wanted, nor did they allow him to argue about the prevalence of COVID-19 in Indian prisons, nor did they allow senior Indian ministers had publicly condemned Nirav Modi. Making a reluctant witness to appear before Nirav. They also did not allow him to take up the case of Abu Salem, nor do some undertrials in India spend on remand. Fitzgerald had tried to argue that some undertrials in India spend 10 to 15 years on remand and also that retired judge Abhay Thipsay, who gave evidence to Nirav, was the victim of horrific attacks.
India is seeking to extradite Nirav to Punjab National Bank to face criminal proceedings for committing large-scale fraud and legalizing the proceeds of that fraud, interference with evidence and intimidation of witnesses. Britain’s Home Secretary Priti Patel ordered the extradition of Nirav to India on 15 April 2021, which she is appealing.
The gist of the appeal hearing – now delayed to October – will be about what is likely to be done by Nirav suicidal If extradited and thus whether it would be repressive to extradite him. Expert psychiatrists from both the sides will be brought in for cross-examination.
District Judge Goozie determined in the trial court that Nirav lacked the ability to resist the urge to commit suicide and thus was not coercive to extradite him. But on Tuesday, Edward Fitzgerald, representing Nirav, argued in the High Court that it was a “false test”, saying Goozy had mistakenly believed the risk of suicide to be imminent in order to be repressive. He also said that the Indian government’s argument that Nirav would “get better” in an Indian prison was distorted and without any evidence, and that Delhi’s assurances about Nirav’s prison conditions were “extremely flawed”.
“The fact of extradition will bring depression. We say that decreases his ability to resist the impulse to commit suicide,” Fitzgerald said.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Justice J also allowed Nirav access to private healthcare at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, allowing the appeal to be debated. Fitzgerald had said that Delhi’s assurances about access to private treatment at Arthur Road Jail, Mumbai, “are absolutely not guaranteed as it all depends on whether the doctors at Mumbai’s JJ Hospital allow it”. .
Helen MalcolmRepresenting the Indian government, said Nirav would get private treatment if he really needed it, but could not call a private doctor “every time he had a cold”.
The judges also ruled that the evidence of former Bombay High Court Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog would be allowed in the appeal hearing. Nandrajog argues that the Indian government cannot give assurances on behalf of any Indian state about his prison status.
But the judges did not allow the case to be sent back to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court as Fitzgerald wanted, nor did they allow him to argue about the prevalence of COVID-19 in Indian prisons, nor did they allow senior Indian ministers had publicly condemned Nirav Modi. Making a reluctant witness to appear before Nirav. They also did not allow him to take up the case of Abu Salem, nor do some undertrials in India spend on remand. Fitzgerald had tried to argue that some undertrials in India spend 10 to 15 years on remand and also that retired judge Abhay Thipsay, who gave evidence to Nirav, was the victim of horrific attacks.
India is seeking to extradite Nirav to Punjab National Bank to face criminal proceedings for committing large-scale fraud and legalizing the proceeds of that fraud, interference with evidence and intimidation of witnesses. Britain’s Home Secretary Priti Patel ordered the extradition of Nirav to India on 15 April 2021, which she is appealing.