Robert Cameron v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2016] HCJAC 13

Extradition appeal:- On 29 October 2015, at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, the applicant was ordered to be extradited to Spain in terms of the Extradition Act 2003. Here the applicant sought leave to appeal against the order that was made. The charge which the applicant faces in Spain relates to the supply of 25.76 grams of cocaine with a value of €1,525. At the time the applicant was also in possession of €888. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the sheriff had erred in a number of respects:- (1) the sheriff had been wrong in deciding that it would not be unjust to order extradition despite the passage of time as an important witness who was the incriminee was “untraceable”; (2) the sheriff had erred in holding that it would not be oppressive to extradite in that the applicant had travelled to Spain on four occasions since his original detention without any difficulty and there was an expectation on his part that no proceedings would be raised; and (3) the sheriff had erred in law having regard to the absence of the incriminee having regard to the applicant’s Article 6 Convention rights. The sheriff’s view was that absence of the witness was not related specifically to the passage of time and he rejected the submission that the applicant had not been aware of pending charges in light of his detention and the seizure of money from him. The court here referred to the general test set out in Lagunionek v Lord Advocate 2015 SCCR 292 and the various considerations relating to injustice or oppression due to the passage of time. The court here refused leave to appeal and stated that there was no arguable case for presenting any of the grounds of appeal. The court was unable to identify any errors in the sheriff’s reasoning which it described as “careful and detailed”. The court stated that the missing incriminee did not of itself amount to injustice or oppression. It is a matter for the court at first instance, in this case in Alicante in Spain, which, as a Council of Europe country, it was a matter for them to consider what effect, if any, the missing witness would have and to what extent that might affect the applicant’s Convention Art 6 rights.