The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal on a limited evidence procedure issue in an extradition case and sent the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration. It did not decide whether the appellant should be surrendered to the Russian Federation or resolve her allegations about treatment there.
The case concerns a Russian request under Part II of the Extradition Act 1965 to extradite Estonian national Ludmilla Borisovna Pratkunas so she could be charged with alleged fraud. The High Court had ordered her surrender and committed her to prison pending surrender. She appealed and was granted bail pending the appeal.
The Russian allegation was that Pratkunas and an accomplice, Mr Vaganov, used a company to obtain concrete slabs after agreeing to repay a debt owed by a hydroelectric station. The Russian Federation alleged that the debt was not repaid and that the slabs, valued at 381,866 roubles, were misappropriated. These are allegations; the Supreme Court made no finding on them. Vaganov was found guilty in 2002 and received a five-year suspended sentence on condition that he repay the money.
Pratkunas also alleged that Russian authorities detained and abused her in 2000 in an unrelated matter, and that documents relevant to the extradition case were taken from her apartment. Russia rejected her account and sent reports about her detention. The High Court considered those reports when addressing her allegations.
The Supreme Court held that section 37 of the 1965 Act allows formal documents supporting an extradition request to be admitted without further proof if statutory conditions are met. It said that provision applies to the supporting documents listed in section 25, not additional material submitted to answer allegations raised during the proceedings. Such further evidence must instead comply with section 7B, which allows evidence by affidavit or written statement and permits the court to require oral evidence where the interests of justice require it.
The formal documents supporting Russia’s request had been admitted under section 37, and that part of the High Court’s decision was not appealed. The error concerned the additional reports: they had been treated as admissible under section 37 rather than submitted under section 7B.
The Supreme Court remitted the case to the High Court so either side could present evidence in the appropriate form. It said the High Court should consider the matter afresh on the evidence that may be brought before it. The appeal did not disturb the finding that the formal request requirements had been met, and the Supreme Court made no decision on the substantive issues raised.