A High Court judge in London on Monday granted fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi permission to appeal against a magistrates’ court order in favour of extradition to India to face charges of fraud and money laundering before the Indian courts on mental health and human rights grounds.
Justice Martin Chamberlain delivered his verdict remotely under COVID-19 rules to conclude that the arguments presented by the 50-year-old diamond merchant’s legal team concerning his severe depression and high risk of suicide were arguable at a substantial hearing.
He also noted that the adequacy of the measures capable of preventing successful suicide attempts at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai, where Nirav Modi is to be detained upon extradition, also falls within the arguable ambit.
At this stage, the question for me is simply whether the appellant’s case on these grounds is reasonably arguable. In my judgment, it is. I will grant permission to appeal on Grounds 3 and 4, Justice Chamberlain’s ruling notes. Grounds 3 and 4 relate to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), or the right to life, liberty, and security, and Section 91 of the UK’s Criminal Justice Act 2003 related to fitness to plead.
The judge noted that the arguments made under both grounds overlap in this case as they both rely principally on the appellant, Nirav Modi’s mental ill-health.
I will not restrict the basis on which those grounds can be argued, though it seems to me that there should be a particular focus on whether the judge was wrong to reach the conclusion he did, given the evidence as to the severity of the appellant’s [Nirav Modi’s] depression, the high risk of suicide and the adequacy of any measures capable of preventing successful suicide attempts in Arthur Road prison, the ruling notes.