Grand Chamber to hear article 3 appeal of Briton wanted in US for murder

The applicant, Phillip Harkins, is a British national who was born in 1978 and is currently detained in HMP Belmarsh.

In 2000 Mr Harkins was indicted in Florida for first degree murder and attempted robbery with a firearm. He was arrested in the UK in 2003 and the US authorities sought his extradition. In a Diplomatic Note issued on 3 June 2005 the US Embassy assured the UK government that the death penalty would not be sought. In June 2006 the Secretary of State ordered Mr Harkins’ extradition. Mr Harkins then complained unsuccessfully before the British courts that, if extradited, he risked execution or a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. In 2007 the High Court found that there was no risk of execution if Mr Harkins were to be extradited and, in 2011, it found that a life sentence without parole would not violate article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the meantime, in 2007, Mr Harkins had applied to the ECtHR for the first time (Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 9146/07). In January 2012 the court found that Mr Harkin’s extradition would not violate article 3 of the Convention. It rejected as inadmissible the complaint concerning the alleged risk of the death penalty, considering that the diplomatic assurances, provided by the US to the UK government, were clear and sufficient to remove any risk of Mr Harkins being sentenced to death if extradited.

The court also found that the imposition of a mandatory life sentence in the US would not violate article 3. He had been over 18 at the time of his alleged crime, had not been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, and the killing had been part of an armed robbery attempt – an aggravating factor.

Further, he had not yet been convicted, and – even if he were convicted and given a mandatory life sentence – keeping him in prison might continue to be justified throughout his life time. And if that were not the case, the Governor of Florida and the Florida Board of Executive Clemency could, in principle, decide to reduce his sentence.

Following this judgment, Mr Harkins raised further issues domestically, which ultimately resulted in a decision by the High Court in November 2014. The High Court principally refused to re-open the proceedings, finding that the ECtHR judgments in the cases of Vinter and Others v the United Kingdom of July 2013 and Trabelsi v Belgium of September 2014 had not recast Convention law to such an extent that Mr Harkins’ extradition would result in a violation of article 3 of the Convention.

On 11 November 2014 Mr Harkins applied to the ECtHR a second time. Relying on articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, Mr Harkins complains about his extradition to the USA, alleging that a first-degree murder conviction in the US carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole.