Scot accused of murder to face trial in US after losing extradition battle at Strasbourg

The case Harkins v the United Kingdom concerned the extradition of a British national to the US to face trial for first-degree murder.

Mr Harkins, the applicant, complained that his extradition to the US would violate articles 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention of Human Rights, because if convicted in Florida he would face a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In its decision, the court has declared both complaints inadmissible. The decision is final. The court also decided that the interim measure (under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) indicating to the UK government that it should stay Mr Harkins’ extradition is to be lifted.

This is the second time Mr Harkins has applied to the European Court with regard to his extradition. In 2012, in the judgment Harkins and Edwards v the United Kingdom, the court found that his extradition would not violate article 3.

However, Mr Harkins was not extradited and following the subsequent ECtHR judgments in Vinter and Others v the UK and Trabelsi v Belgium he argued before the national courts that developments in the court’s article 3 case-law on life sentences without the possibility of parole were such as to require the re-opening of the proceedings.

The UK courts refused to re-open the proceedings and, in this second application to the court, Mr Harkins, relying on the court’s recent case-law, once again complained that his extradition would breach his rights under article 3 of the Convention.

The court held that Mr Harkins’ complaints under article 3 should be declared inadmissible as they were “substantially the same” (within the meaning of article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention) as the article 3 complaint considered by it in 2012.

In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected Mr Harkins’ argument that the development of its case-law in the Vinter and Trabelsi cases could constitute “relevant new information” for the purposes of article 35 § 2 (b).

To find otherwise would undermine the principle of legal certainty and undermine the credibility and authority of the court’s judgments.

As concerned Mr Harkins’ complaint under article 6, the court concluded that the facts of the case did not disclose any risk that Mr Harkins would suffer a flagrant denial of justice.