The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Wall’s appeal against extradition to the United States, finding that the evidence did not establish a real risk he would face inhuman or degrading treatment in Georgia after any future release from custody.
The appeal concerned an extradition request for a hearing on whether Wall had violated probation. The parties agreed that, if returned, he would initially be held in custody. The dispute was whether he might later have to serve part of his remaining sentence on probation in Georgia, where he said restrictions could leave him homeless and living in a tent.
The court accepted there was a real risk that Wall could be required to serve some of his sentence on probation under supervision. But it said that finding did not resolve the appeal. The question was whether the eventual risk of prohibited treatment had been established, not simply whether probation was possible.
Wall had previously experienced homelessness and poverty while under supervision in Georgia. His evidence and that of a Georgia attorney described difficulties finding accommodation and work under restrictions applying to registered sex offenders. The court noted that the expert evidence was sparse and not up to date, and that the case had not established whether Wall would have to live in Savannah, where some of the described restrictions posed particular difficulties.
The court also considered that Wall was expected to serve time in custody if found to have breached probation, and that the prosecutor intended to recommend that any remaining probation be terminated. The court did not find that recommendation would determine the outcome. It said other possibilities remained, including finding suitable accommodation elsewhere in Georgia, using shelter accommodation, or obtaining work.
The judgment said the risk depended on a chain of uncertain events after extradition. It held that the evidence showed a possibility of ill treatment, but that the risk of Wall ending up in circumstances like those he had previously experienced was too remote to amount to substantial or reasonable grounds for finding a real risk.
The court expressed no conclusion on whether living in a campground in the circumstances described would itself amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. It also found it unnecessary to address whether an appellate court could seek further information or remit the matter to the High Court.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not itself order extradition; it rejects the appeal against the High Court’s conclusion that the claimed risk did not justify refusing it.