The Supreme Court has upheld a High Court order for Farah Damji’s surrender to the United Kingdom under a European Arrest Warrant. It rejected her appeal, finding that the evidence did not establish a serious risk that surrender would breach her constitutional rights or Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Damji argued that she was psychologically vulnerable and that, if returned to prison in the UK, she would not receive the specialised therapy she needed. Her case relied particularly on reports by consultant psychologist Graham Rogers, who recommended psychodynamic psychotherapy and said it could take two to three years. He also described shortages of mental health professionals and difficulties accessing that therapy in and outside prison.
The Supreme Court noted that the reports did not present a consistent diagnosis. Rogers’s views differed from those of Dublin psychiatrist Seán Ó’Domhnaill, while UK forensic psychiatrist Pratish Thakkar diagnosed complex post-traumatic stress disorder. The court also said the claims about past misdiagnosis and treatment in UK prisons had not been tested in evidence in these surrender proceedings. It did not determine whether the earlier treatment had been deficient.
The UK authorities had assured the High Court that, if surrendered, Damji would be assessed by a prison GP, who would receive her medical records and refer her to specialists if considered necessary. The Supreme Court considered this assurance alongside the evidence about UK prison mental health services, the proposed therapy’s limited availability and the uncertainty about how long Damji would remain in custody.
The court said the evidence did not show that the absence of the recommended therapy during the remaining sentence would put Damji at serious risk of a breach of her rights. It also noted there was no evidence that she had accessed that therapy while at liberty, or that it would have been immediately available to her outside prison. The judgment said the burden was on Damji to rebut the legal presumption that the issuing state would comply with its obligations, and concluded that she had not done so.
The High Court had granted the surrender order in February 2022. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. It left arrangements for executing the order to the High Court.