Extradition of woman to the Netherlands refused
The extradition of a vulnerable woman to the Netherlands was refused in relation to a conviction for immigration offences after the court was persuaded the impact on her daughter would be exceptionally severe.
On 20 August 2024, Mr Justice Murray allowed an appeal against extradition which related to a female requested person, BZQ, whose extradition was sought in relation to a conviction for immigration offences. The conviction had resulted in a prison sentence of 14 months. BZQ has no previous convictions or cautions in this jurisdiction or elsewhere.
Represented by Amelia Nice, BZQ is the sole parent of a young teenage daughter, A. A’s father lives abroad and they have no contact. After BZQ’s arrest, A started self-harming. This escalated during proceedings. Shortly before the DJ’s judgment was handed down, A cut herself on her arms and body in over 60 places. After extradition was ordered, her behaviour escalated and at one point she had taken an overdose.
The District Judge ordered extradition in March 2023. BZQ lodged an appeal arguing that extradition was incompatible with her and her family’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular given the impact on A. BZQ also applied for an extension of funding to cover a psychological report. Such a report had not been obtained during the first instance proceedings. BZQ had only just missed out on legal aid but had insufficient funds to cover the cost of any additional evidence; and her legal team acted pro bono. In any case, the best interests of the child clearly then required analysis of the changing and/or escalating picture.
On 18 October 2023, Mr Justice Swift granted funding for a report about A to be prepared by Dr Sharon Pettle, Consultant Clinical Psychologist.
At a hearing on 1 February 2024, Mrs Justice Hill granted permission to appeal and made an anonymity order in relation to the appellant, thereafter BZQ, and in relation to BZQ’s daughter, son, and her son’s partner - be referred to as “A”, “B”, and “C”, respectively.
On appeal Amelia argued that the District Judge made errors in his assessment of the key factors for and against extradition. The cumulative effect of those errors caused him to reach the wrong decision. But that in any event, having regard to all of the new evidence, the court should look at the matter afresh and conclude that the consequences of the extradition of BZQ would be exceptionally severe for A.
During the course of the Magistrates’ proceedings, a section 7 Report (prepared under the auspices of section 7 of the Children Act 1989) showed that B was a “positive and protective factor” for A and that, with support from health professionals, it was hoped that the risk of harm for A resulting from BZQ’s extradition could be managed and reduced. The Judge concluded the family would adequately protect A and that extradition would be proportionate.
On appeal it was argued that, whilst the family would indeed “rally round” and try to care for A the section 7 report itself was inadequate and had not properly assessed the real capacity of B and C to manage. Dr Pettle’s report concluded that BZQ’s extradition would be likely to have serious and significant short and long term consequences for her A, and create many difficulties for her son and his family. The deterioration in A’s psychological health would of itself be profound and the likelihood of further and more serious self-harm was high. Her academic progress was likely to be severely impacted. She may suffer from many of the long-term sequelae known to affect children and young people who experience a parent being incarcerated: made worse by BZQ being her main, and only, attachment figure. Dr Pettle stressed, without any criticism of B, that he had his own difficult mental health history, including struggles with anxiety, severe depressive symptoms, panic attacks, a previous overdose and current “passive suicidal thoughts”. Given the impact of extradition on A and the proposed “care plan”, it was in fact “not realistic” to expect B to have the “inner resources” to manage.
A further feature of the case related to BZQ’s uncertain immigration status. She had lived here for approximately 13 years. However, her application for Settled Status had been put on hold pending resolution of the extradition case. Given the sentence imposed of over 12 months she would apply to re-join her family from outside this country after being released from prison in the Netherlands under the terms of Appendix FM of the Immigration rules; Gurskis v Latvia [2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin). Asides the question as to whether or not BZQ could fulfil the requirements under Appendix FM, the cost and timescales for any application to be processed were uncertain. This would be a further burden for A to bear. BZQ has faced a protracted period of uncertainty over her immigration status, which has had a “profoundly” negative effect on A, according to Dr Pettle who stressed the deep significance of the longer term possible exclusion of BZQ from the UK and the impact of the uncertainty; “an “awful” prospect for A”.
Having considered the evidence Murray J concluded that he was persuaded that the impact on A of BZQ’s extradition would be exceptionally severe. “The assessment of the district judge as to the ability of B, with C’s help, and/or BZQ’s sister to provide adequate care for A in light of her particular mental health difficulties and self-harming conduct was too optimistic, although understandably so given the information before him at the extradition hearing.”
The appeal was allowed. This case illustrates the crucial potential importance of expert psychological evidence even where a detailed section 7 report is before the court. Mr J Murray accepted that a psychologist is qualified to examine matters which may be beyond the proper remit of a section 7 report.
In BZQ v Netherlands [2024] EWHC 2002 (Admin), Amelia was instructed by Harry Grayson at Birds Solicitors.
