London: A UK court on Tuesday began hearing continuous appeals in Nirvi’s extradition case. ModiWho is wanted in India on charges of fraud and money laundering amounting to an estimated $2 billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) loan scam case.
The 51-year-old diamond trader had last year filed an appeal against his extradition order on grounds of mental health.
Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay presided over the preliminary hearing High Court In December last year to determine whether District Judge Sam Goozy’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court had ruled in favor of extradition from February 2021, ignoring the diamond merchant’s “high risk of suicide”.
The hearing this week is to continue the appeal, with a decision likely to come soon.
If Modi wins this appeal hearing in the High Court, he cannot be extradited until the Indian government is successful in obtaining permission to appeal. Supreme court On a point of law of public importance.
On the other hand, if he loses the hearing of this appeal, Modi can approach the Supreme Court on the issue of law of public importance to apply to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision within 14 days of the High Court’s decision. Huh. However, this involves a higher limit as an appeal to the Supreme Court can be made only if the High Court has certified that the matter involves a law of general public importance.
Finally, after all avenues in UK courts have been exhausted, he can still seek a so-called Rule 39 injunction from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
According to officials familiar with the matter, the Indian government has given assurances about the conditions in which Modi will be detained if he surrenders to India and the facilities available to look after his “physical and mental health”. Both sides will now make their point about whether those assurances are sufficient and can be relied upon.
During the December appeal hearing, Edward Fitzgerald QC argued on Modi’s behalf, “He is already at high risk of suicide and his situation in Mumbai is likely to worsen.”
Meanwhile, Modi is behind bars at Wandsworth Prison in south-west London since his arrest in March 2019.
The high court hearing follows a ruling by High Court Justice Martin Chamberlain in August last year that arguments relating to Jeweler’s “severe depression” and “high risk of suicide” were debatable at a full appeal hearing.
Appeal against Judge Goozy’s decision to refer the case to the UK Home Secretary Preeti Patel The extradition was allowed to appeal to the High Court on two grounds – to hear arguments under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on whether to extradite Modi because of his mental state and Section 91 to be “unjust or oppressive” ” Will happen. The Extradition Act 2003 also deals with mental illness.
Modi’s “high risk of suicide” and “adequacy of any measure capable of preventing successful suicide attempts at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai” were considered as focal points of the appeal.
Permission to appeal was denied on all other grounds including admissibility of evidence provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the signing of Patel’s extradition. The High Court also held that the approach of the District Judge to identify the prima facie case in the PNB fraud case was “correct”.
Modi’s legal team has sought to establish that it would be repressive to extradite him because of his mental state, which may have given rise to suicidal urges, given his mother’s family history of suicide, and that he should ” blatant denial of justice”. in India. The lawyers have also claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic is “overwhelming” the Indian prison system.
Arguing for India, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has highlighted a “high level of diplomatic assurance” to provide adequate medical assistance to the accused if they are extradited to face trial in India.
Modi is the subject of two sets of criminal proceedings, the CBI case relating to fraudulent obtaining of large-scale fraudulent undertakings (LoUs) or loan agreements on PNB, and the ED case relating to laundering of proceeds. of that fraud.
He also faces two additional charges of “disappearance of evidence” and intimidation of witnesses or “criminal intimidation to cause death”, which were added in the CBI case.
The 51-year-old diamond trader had last year filed an appeal against his extradition order on grounds of mental health.
Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay presided over the preliminary hearing High Court In December last year to determine whether District Judge Sam Goozy’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court had ruled in favor of extradition from February 2021, ignoring the diamond merchant’s “high risk of suicide”.
The hearing this week is to continue the appeal, with a decision likely to come soon.
If Modi wins this appeal hearing in the High Court, he cannot be extradited until the Indian government is successful in obtaining permission to appeal. Supreme court On a point of law of public importance.
On the other hand, if he loses the hearing of this appeal, Modi can approach the Supreme Court on the issue of law of public importance to apply to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision within 14 days of the High Court’s decision. Huh. However, this involves a higher limit as an appeal to the Supreme Court can be made only if the High Court has certified that the matter involves a law of general public importance.
Finally, after all avenues in UK courts have been exhausted, he can still seek a so-called Rule 39 injunction from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
According to officials familiar with the matter, the Indian government has given assurances about the conditions in which Modi will be detained if he surrenders to India and the facilities available to look after his “physical and mental health”. Both sides will now make their point about whether those assurances are sufficient and can be relied upon.
During the December appeal hearing, Edward Fitzgerald QC argued on Modi’s behalf, “He is already at high risk of suicide and his situation in Mumbai is likely to worsen.”
Meanwhile, Modi is behind bars at Wandsworth Prison in south-west London since his arrest in March 2019.
The high court hearing follows a ruling by High Court Justice Martin Chamberlain in August last year that arguments relating to Jeweler’s “severe depression” and “high risk of suicide” were debatable at a full appeal hearing.
Appeal against Judge Goozy’s decision to refer the case to the UK Home Secretary Preeti Patel The extradition was allowed to appeal to the High Court on two grounds – to hear arguments under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on whether to extradite Modi because of his mental state and Section 91 to be “unjust or oppressive” ” Will happen. The Extradition Act 2003 also deals with mental illness.
Modi’s “high risk of suicide” and “adequacy of any measure capable of preventing successful suicide attempts at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai” were considered as focal points of the appeal.
Permission to appeal was denied on all other grounds including admissibility of evidence provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the signing of Patel’s extradition. The High Court also held that the approach of the District Judge to identify the prima facie case in the PNB fraud case was “correct”.
Modi’s legal team has sought to establish that it would be repressive to extradite him because of his mental state, which may have given rise to suicidal urges, given his mother’s family history of suicide, and that he should ” blatant denial of justice”. in India. The lawyers have also claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic is “overwhelming” the Indian prison system.
Arguing for India, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has highlighted a “high level of diplomatic assurance” to provide adequate medical assistance to the accused if they are extradited to face trial in India.
Modi is the subject of two sets of criminal proceedings, the CBI case relating to fraudulent obtaining of large-scale fraudulent undertakings (LoUs) or loan agreements on PNB, and the ED case relating to laundering of proceeds. of that fraud.
He also faces two additional charges of “disappearance of evidence” and intimidation of witnesses or “criminal intimidation to cause death”, which were added in the CBI case.