No extradition for Shrien Dewani – for now

31 March 2012 by

The Government of the Republic of South Africa v Shrien Dewani- Read decision

The extradition to South Africa of Shrien Dewani, the man accused of murdering his wife on honeymoon there in 2010, has been delayed pending an improvement in his mental health.

The case made headlines in 2010, when the story broke of a honeymooning couple who had been ambushed in the township of Gugulethu, South Africa. Mr Dewani told police he had been travelling in a taxi which was ambushed by two men. He described being forced from the car at gunpoint and the car driving away with his wife still inside. She was found dead shortly after.  However, evidence emerged which led the South African authorities to believe that Mr Dewani had initiated a conspiracy with the taxi driver and the men who ambushed the taxi to murder his new wife. Consequently, they sought his extradition from the UK, to which he had returned, to face a trial for murder.

In an appeal to the High Court from a decision by a Senior District Judge that Mr Dewani could be extradited, Mr Dewani made two arguments:
1.    Prison conditions in South Africa were such that his Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment) Convention rights would be violated if he were extradited;

2.    His mental health and risk of suicide were such that his should not be extradited.

Articles 2 and 3 and prison conditions
Mr Dewani argued that his extradition would violate these two rights because of the risks he would face due to contemporary prison conditions in South Africa. The South African government had given undertakings that he would be held in a single cell in various prisons if extradited. The lower Court had heard evidence that there was serious overcrowding in South African prisons, and that this impacted upon the availability of healthcare and treatment for those with mental illnesses. Gang problems within prisons were noted, with non-members in communal cells sometimes being subjected to rape and intimidation. The risk of HIV/AIDS being transmitted in a sexual assault was another factor of relevance. There was evidence that Mr Dewani would be at particular risk of sexual violence, being someone who was “youthful, good looking and [who] lacked “street wisdom”” (paragraph 18).

The High Court concluded that there was no basis for differing from the decision of the lower Court. It noted,

There are plainly risks of violence, particularly sexual violence, to a prisoner held in a communal cell in South Africa, though it is not necessary for us to quantify those risks as applicable to the appellant. That is because the Government of South Africa has given clear undertakings that the appellant would be held in a single cell...what happens in a single cell bore no relation to what happened in communal cells…South Africa has now a material track record of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Those are highly material factors to the court’s acceptance of the undertakings...” (Paragraph 33)

Mr Dewani’s health

That was not the end of the story however. Considerable evidence had been before the lower Court about Mr Dewani’s mental state after the events giving rise to the extradition request.  Experts agreed that he was suffering from two psychiatric conditions, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), both severely. Suicide was a real risk if he were extradited. However, they also agreed that his condition was likely to improve.

Of particular concern was that he was unfit to plead (in general terms this means being unable to take part in the trial, understand the proceedings and give instructions to a legal team – in Mr Dewani’s case the experts considered he could not follow the detail of the evidence and instruct his lawyers).

Of significance was the fact that there was no undertaking from the South African government that Mr Dewani would be treated in a particular psychiatric unit if extradited. A psychiatrist at a specialist medium secure psychiatric care unit in South Africa provided written evidence that he would be very likely to be referred to this hospital if extradited and he would stay until fit to plead or perhaps indefinitely.

The question of Mr Dewani’s mental state raised issues both regarding Articles 2 and 3 and section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003. Section 91(3)(b) requires courts to discharge or adjourn extradition proceedings where  the person in question’s mental or physical health is such that “it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him”.

After the decision of the lower Court, new evidence was produced indicating that Mr Dewani’s condition was slowly improving, but he remained unfit to plead.

In considering section 91, the High Court stressed that every case is fact sensitive, so previous decisions are not greatly useful. It also noted that in the ordinary case, extradition will cause stress and hardship by its very nature. It was “plainly in the interests of justice that [Mr Dewani] be tried in South Africa as soon as he is fit to be tried” (paragraph 78).
However, extraditing him would pose “a real and significant risk to his life” (paragraph 80) and there was evidence that it would make it harder to improve his condition so that he became fit to plead. Ultimately, the Court found,

Thus balancing his unfitness to plead, the risk of a deterioration in the appellant’s condition, the increased prospects of a speedier recovery if he remains here and, to a much lesser degree, the risk of suicide and the lack of clear certainty as to what would happen to the appellant if returned in his present condition, we consider that on the evidence before the Senior District Judge it would be unjust and oppressive to order his extradition. (Paragraph 83)

Given this position, the Court did not come to a concluded view on whether Articles 2 and 3 would be breached by extradition, with regard to Mr Dewani’s mental state. At later proceedings, it will remain open to Mr Dewani to argue that there would be a risk of breach, given the facilities available in South Africa and his health at that time.

Consequently, he will not be extradited at the present time, but later developments in this case are likely to continue to be controversial and heavily publicised.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy private nuisance private use Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest rights Protocol 15 Public/Private public access publication public authorities public inquiries public interest immunity quango quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: