Nirav Modi faces a “significant risk of suicide” given the “overwhelming” effects of Covid-19 at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai. .
Judge Martin Chamberlain chaired the “Extension Request” hearing held at the court’s Coivd-19 videoconference and has reserved his judgment to write in writing at a later date as to whether or not Nirav Modi should be given permission to appeal his extradition was ordered by District Judge Sam Goozee in February and certified by British Home Secretary Priti Patel in April.
The bearded 50-year-old diamond dealer, who was to be indicted in India for fraud and money laundering in the estimated $ 2 billion fraud case by the Punjab National Bank (PNB), watched the trial held remotely from his Wandsworth Prison in South West London dressed in a black suit and white shirt.
Helen Malcolm, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) attorney who appeared on behalf of the Indian authorities, opposed the allowance of an appeal by reiterating that the expert evidence on Nirav Modi’s mental health has not been contested and that the regime serving him in Mumbai awaits assurances from the Indian government about adequate medical care.
“Such a high level of diplomatic assurance has never been violated,” she said, a point also alleged by the attorney who appeared on behalf of the UK Home Secretary.
“There is nothing to suggest that the existing special arrangements (under the extradition treaty between Great Britain and India) are ineffective,” said Rosemary Davidson when she told the defense team about other Indian extradition cases against former Kingfisher Airlines boss Vijay Mallya opposed and alleged cricket bookmaker Sanjeev Chawla.
When Nirav Modi’s attorneys opened the hearing on Wednesday, they attempted to create the grounds for a full appeal hearing in the High Court by claiming it would be depressing to extradite him because of his mental health, given his family history of suicide . could lead to suicidal thoughts of his mother and that he is threatened with a “blatant denial of justice” in India.
Nirav Modi’s attorney Edward Fitzgerald argued that District Judge Goozee made a “series of mistakes” in his February extradition ruling when he concluded that Nirav Modi’s severe depression was not only not uncommon in the face of his incarceration, but that he also did not issue an immediate impulse to suicide.
ALSO READ | Explained: How ED won the protracted UK litigation to bring back Nirav Modi
“The district judge wrongly assumed that the complainant’s (Nirav Modi) psychological condition was nothing unusual and he did not focus on his current suitability to plead,” said Fitzgerald.
“In relation to the District Judge’s conclusion that ‘the applicant’s condition will improve upon his return’ and ‘his current conditions of detention will be improved’, this finding was perverse in relation to the evidence available to him, and in light of the new It is based on his assessment, conditions in Arthur Road Jail, Mumbai, will be better than those at HMP Wandsworth, ”he noted.
Nirav Modi’s attorneys relied on expert reports from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Forrester, previously brought before the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London.
“In my opinion, Nirav Modi should now be viewed as a significant (ie high), if not immediate, suicide risk,” Forrester’s assessment in its August 27, 2020 report.
The lawyers also came up with new evidence to claim the Covid-19 pandemic was “overwhelming that the new Covid outbreak is bringing the healthcare system to the brink of collapse”.
ALSO READ | Timeline of Nirav Modi’s arrest in a $ 2 billion PNB fraud case
Associate lawyer Ben Watson argued that Judge Goozee was misled when he made his decision in favor of prima facie trial against Nirav Modi over the “scope” and nature of the PNB fraud conspiracy.
The defense again attempted to question the admissibility of much of the evidence presented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying it was an issue that “has plagued many Indian extradition requests”.
“That means it’s an argument that has been tried several times,” countered Helen Malcolm, categorizing it as re-presenting evidence that the district judge had already processed.
Regarding the April Home Secretary’s extradition warrant, it has been argued that she should not rely on the Indian government’s assurances.
“She (Priti Patel) has completely failed to take into account the evidence of other breaches of obligations towards both the UK and third countries,” Fitzgerald alleged.
Nirav Modi is the subject of two criminal proceedings, the CBI case involving large-scale fraud against PNB through fraudulent procurement of letters of commitment (LoUs) or loan agreements and the case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in relation to money laundering of the proceeds from this fraud.
He also faces two other charges of “disappearance of evidence” and intimidation of witnesses or “criminal intimidation to death” that have been added to the CBI case.
India is a Part 2 country under the 2003 Extradition Act, which means that the UK Cabinet Secretary has the power to order the extradition of a wanted person after all legal issues have been resolved in court.
एक टिप्पणी भेजें