The Supreme Court has dismissed Gary Davis’s appeal against an order for his extradition to the United States, where he is wanted for trial on alleged drug, computer hacking and money laundering conspiracies. The court concluded that he had not established a real risk that extradition would breach his fundamental rights.
Davis, an Irish citizen diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, argued that detention in the US could worsen his mental health and put his life at risk. He raised concerns about both pre-trial detention and imprisonment if convicted, including the care available to him and the possibility of placement in a Special Housing Unit.
The judgment records conflicting evidence about Davis’s condition and the likely conditions of detention. The Supreme Court accepted that the High Court was entitled to find that he has Asperger’s Syndrome. It also agreed with the High Court’s assessment that he was unlikely to be held in the Special Housing Unit and that mental health services and treatment would be available in federal custody. The court noted that the place where he might be imprisoned if convicted was not known.
The appeal reached the Supreme Court after the High Court directed extradition in 2016 and the Court of Appeal dismissed Davis’s appeal in 2017. The Court of Appeal had held that his challenge sought a different conclusion on the same evidence and did not raise a point of law, as required by section 29(5) of the Extradition Act 1965.
The Supreme Court explained that factual findings can raise a point of law in limited circumstances, including where a finding has no evidence to support it or no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. It said the State has a constitutional duty to protect people from extradition where the evidence establishes a real risk of treatment contrary to fundamental rights. The person opposing extradition bears the evidential burden of establishing that risk.
In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the affidavit evidence and concluded that Davis had not shown the required risk. It dismissed the appeal. The court’s decision left the extradition order in place; it did not determine the US charges, which remain allegations to be tried there.