India secured another legal victory in the U.K. as a judge at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court has said that the extradition of alleged bookie Sanjeev Chawla can proceed, and referred the case to Home Secretary Sajid Javid for a final decision.
The development came at a procedural hearing on Monday before District Judge Rebecca Crane.
It complied with a ruling by the High Court in London last year, which overturned the verdict of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court discharging him on the basis of concerns over conditions at Tihar Jail.
The extradition of businessman Vijay Mallya was ordered last month.
It came a month after the Chief Magistrate at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered the extradition of businessman Vijay Mallya, also referring it to the Home Secretary for a final decision.
The Home Secretary will now have two months, from the time the case is passed to him from the court, to decide whether or not Mr. Chawla can be extradited.
Under the extradition procedure Mr. Javid has to give consideration to matters such as whether there was a possibility of the death penalty being applied or extradition to a third country (neither of which factors would apply in the Chawla case). Should extradition be ordered, Mr. Chawla would have two weeks to lodge an application to appeal to the High Court. Should this appeal be unsuccessful a further attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court could be made (though this would only happen if the Supreme Court granted permission to do so).
In November, the High Court quashed the lower court ruling following an appeal by the Crown Prosecution Service acting on behalf of India.
Contrary to Ms. Crane’s initial ruling, Lord Justice Leggatt and Mr. Justice Dingemans at the Royal Courts of Justice High Court concluded that new assurances provided by India meant there was “no real risk that Mr. Chawla will be subjected to impermissible treatment in Tihar prisons.”
In October 2017, Ms. Crane had ordered Mr. Chawla’s discharge despite there being a prima facie case against him in the match-fixing scandal in early 2000, because of conditions at Tihar prisons in New Delhi, which led her to conclude there was a risk of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights being contravened.
This article states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
In a May judgment, the High Court judges also ruled out the risk of Article 3 contravention, but said India should have the chance to offer assurances relating to the personal space for Mr. Chawla, toilet and medical facilities and also how India would ensure he was free from the risk of intra-prisoner violence in high security wards.
In June, the Indian government provided further assurances, including that Mr. Chawla would be accommodated only in a single cell with proper safety and security and not within a high security ward, and would house inmates with “satisfactory conduct.”
There were also reassurances around medical provision that the court saw as a “sufficient assurance.” In their final judgment the High Court judges noted India’s “solemn diplomatic assurance” around four specific cells that Mr. Chawla would be held in.
Mr. Chawla stands accused by India in the 2000 cricket match-fixing scandal involving matches played between India and South Africa during the tour of the South African cricket team to India under the captainship of Hansie Cronje in February to March of that year.
According to previous court documents, Mr. Chawla was introduced to Cronje in January or February 2000. India says he suggested to Cronje that “he could make significant amounts of money if he agreed to lose cricket matches.”
After money was paid before the trip, Cronje and others conspired to “fix cricket matches in exchange for payment” with Mr. Chawla playing a “central role, including direct contact with Hansie Cronje,” according to the court documents. Mr. Chawla was first arrested in June 2016, since which time he has remained on bail.
No comments:
Post a Comment