The High Court rejected objections to the surrender of Michael Anthony Balmer to the United Kingdom under a European arrest warrant, finding that the objections had not been made out. The court did not itself decide whether any continued detention after his return would comply with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The warrant seeks Balmer’s return to resume serving a life sentence for murder, imposed by Exeter Crown Court in 1984. He was released on licence in 2011 and recalled to prison in March 2012. The recall notice cited an alleged further offence and “poor behaviour”. It said more detailed reasons and supporting information would be provided after his return to custody, and identified review by the Parole Board.
Balmer argued that he had served the punitive part of his sentence and that returning him to prison would amount to detention solely for public protection. He also argued that the brief recall reasons made his detention arbitrary under Article 5 and breached constitutional protections, including the right to liberty in due course of law.
The court rejected the constitutional objection. It said the Supreme Court had determined that a UK mandatory life sentence of this kind had the same legal nature as an Irish mandatory life sentence, which is wholly punitive and does not incorporate preventative detention. The court therefore concluded that surrender to resume the life sentence was not prohibited on that ground under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
On Article 5, the court said the issuing state was presumed to respect Balmer’s rights and that the evidence did not displace that presumption. It noted that the recall notice gave short-form reasons, promised fuller reasons and the information behind the recall within a short period after his return, and provided for independent Parole Board review. The court rejected the Article 5 objection, while expressly declining to rule on whether continued detention would in fact comply with the Convention. It said that question was for the UK Parole Board or courts, which were better placed to assess the recall decision and the relevant records.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 10 September 2014, concluded that it was appropriate to surrender Balmer under the warrant. The source does not include a separate operative order specifying the mechanics or timing of surrender.