The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Scotland for prosecution on allegations of possessing a firearm and assault, after accepting assurances about his care in prison.
In a decision delivered on 29 April 2024, Ms Justice Melanie Greally dismissed all six objections raised by the respondent to a second Trade and Co-operation Agreement Warrant. The order was made under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The court also found that surrender was not prohibited under the other provisions considered in the judgment.
The warrant seeks the respondent’s surrender for prosecution over alleged events on 16 September 2021. The warrant says he had a firearm with intent to make Christopher Begg believe unlawful violence would be used against him. It also alleges that he struck Mr Begg with a brick, put him in a headlock, gouged his eyes, and kicked and punched him. These are allegations; the High Court was deciding surrender, not guilt.
A previous surrender application was refused in June 2023. Mr Justice McDermott found a real or substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the Scottish prison where the respondent was likely to be held, given concerns about whether his needs related to autism spectrum disorder/Asperger’s would be met. The present proceedings concerned a second warrant and additional assurances gathered from Scottish police, prison and health authorities.
Justice Greally rejected the argument that the earlier ruling prevented the court from reconsidering the risk. She found that the new assurance letter was a material change in circumstances and that the earlier decision had not given the respondent permanent immunity from surrender. She also dismissed a separate abuse-of-process objection, noting that the second warrant followed about 15 months after the refusal and that the Scottish authorities had addressed the earlier concerns promptly.
The assurance specified Lowmoss prison and a single cell. It provided for a healthcare consultation within 24 hours of arrival, an individual care plan that would account for the respondent’s neurodevelopmental diagnosis, and access to mental health practitioners. Other stated accommodations included earplugs if required, meals in his cell, separate exercise where arrangements could be made, and clothing choices for visits.
The judge concluded that the assurances addressed the previous concerns and that surrender would not expose the respondent to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The judgment orders surrender for prosecution; it makes no finding on whether the respondent committed the alleged offences.