Sheriff rules extradition of man found to be wanted US fugitive compatible with ECHR rights

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2023] SC EDIN 24
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Norman McFadyen

It was held in November 2022 that the requested person, who goes by the name of Arthur Knight, was in fact Nicholas Rossi, the man wanted by US authorities for the rape. The requested person sought to establish that extradition would not be reasonable on account of his health and prison conditions in Utah.

The application was heard by Sheriff Norman McFadyen, with Cameron, advocate depute, appearing for the Lord Advocate on behalf of the United States and Bovey KC and Shand, advocate, appearing for the requested person.

No significant illness

It was the requested person’s case that extradition was barred under section 79(1)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003 by reason of passage of time, and under section 91 in relation to his physical and mental health, notwithstanding his continued denial that he was Nicholas Rossi. He averred that he had difficulty moving and breathing and required a wheelchair for daily use.

Evidence given by two consultant psychiatrists and a prison GP, who noted that despite the person’s case notes suggesting a diagnosis of ADHD, there was no evidence of acute mental illness that would present a barrier to extradition. The evidence of the prison GP was that it was not clear to her why he used a wheelchair and that his legs were not those of a paraplegic.

It was submitted for the requested person that there would be a risk of prejudice at trial due to the passage of time, and that there would be personal and family hardship greater than what is inevitable in extradition for a trial in another country. His health had clearly deteriorated in recent years, and he was reliant on the support of his wife. Further, his mental state was such as to inhibit his ability to give instructions in an important trial, and there was a high risk he would be poorly treated in a US prison.

For the Lord Advocate it was submitted that there was no medical evidence before the court suggesting the requested person suffered from any significant illness. While he had been very sick with Covid when first arrested, there was no explanation for his continued use of a wheelchair, of which medical experts had been sceptical. While a Utah prison might not have the same standard of conditions as the UK, there was no evidence of a high level of ill treatment.

Ultimately straightforward case

In his decision, Sheriff McFadyen said of the person before him: “He continues, of course, to deny that he is Nicholas Rossi, the man who is the subject of the extradition requests and who the court has already found him to be; and he continues to maintain that he is an Irishman, adopted at birth, long resident in the United Kingdom and who has never set foot in the United States. He has, with medical professionals and in court, avoided questions about his childhood and upbringing, I conclude because that is a canvas on which he has not yet chosen to paint.”

He continued: “I conclude that he is as dishonest and deceitful as he is evasive and manipulative. These unfortunate facets of his character have undoubtedly complicated and extended what is ultimately a straightforward case.”

On whether the medical case was made out, the sheriff said: “In this case, not only is there as yet no diagnosis of a personality disorder, but nor is there any basis to conclude that he could not be housed in a Utah prison with such a disorder or that, if he were willing to cooperate, appropriate psychiatric or psychological intervention would not be available.”

Turning to the passage of time, he went on to say: “There is nothing at all exceptional about allegations of this age being tried after 15 years and no particular circumstances were advanced as to why a fair trial would not be possible, in respect of either request and, indeed, as regards the allegation in the second request, were it to be tried in this jurisdiction the presiding judge would almost certainly direct the jury there can be good reasons why a person against whom a sexual offence is committed may not tell others about it or report it to an investigating agency.”

Sheriff McFadyen concluded: “I do not consider that the requested person’s health issues, such as they are, and his limited ties to this country, to his certainly devoted wife, tilt the balance against concluding that it has not been shown by him that he would suffer personal or family hardship greater than what is inevitable and inherent in extradition for a criminal trial in another country, which is the country of his birth and substantial prior residence and when set against the strong public interest in allowing the trial of serious crimes.”

The case was thereafter sent to the Scottish Ministers for their decision as to whether Mr Rossi was to be extradited.