The UK's Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on Tuesday stated it's far reviewing the London High Court ruling to provide fugitive diamond service provider Nirav Modi permission to appeal towards his extradition order with the Indian authorities for the following level in the felony procedure.
The, which represents the Indian government in courtroom, highlighted that the attraction can be heard at a complete hearing on grounds associated with the intellectual fitness of the 50-yr-antique diamantaire, who is lodged at Wandsworth Prison in south-west London as he fights his extradition to stand charges of fraud and money laundering within the anticipated USD 2-billion Punjab National Bank (PNB) rip-off case.
Nirav Modi has been granted permission to enchantment his extradition to India on two grounds. The is reviewing the subsequent steps with the Government of India, a spokesperson said.
On Monday, High Court decide Martin Chamberlain granted Modi permission to appeal in opposition to a Westminster Magistrates' Court order in favour of extradition to India on mental fitness and human rights grounds.
The permission to appeal changed into denied on all other grounds, including leave to enchantment towards UK Home Secretary Priti Patel's extradition order, a legal street that is now closed.
The attraction towards District Judge Sam Goozee's February selection to send the case to the Home Secretary changed into granted depart to enchantment in recognize of of the grounds below Article three of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to listen arguments if it might be unjust or oppressive to extradite him because of his mental kingdom and Section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003, additionally associated with intellectual unwell fitness.
I will now not limit the basis on which those grounds may be argued, though it appears to me that there need to be a particular attention on whether the decide became wrong to reach the conclusion he did, given the evidence as to the severity of the appellant's (Nirav Modi's) despair, the excessive chance of suicide and the adequacy of any measures capable of stopping successful suicide attempts in Arthur Road prison, Justice Chamberlain's ruling notes.
If Modi wins that appeal hearing within the High Court, he cannot be extradited unless the Indian government is a success in getting permission to enchantment on the Supreme Court on a factor of regulation of public significance.
On the flip side, if he loses that appeal hearing, Modi can method the Supreme Court on a factor of regulation of public importance, to be carried out to the Supreme Court against the High Court's selection inside 14 days of a High Court verdict.
However, this marks a high threshold as appeals to the Supreme Court can simplest be made if the High Court has certified that the case involves a point of regulation of trendy public significance.
Finally, in spite of everything avenues inside the UK courts are exhausted, he should still are searching for a so-called Rule 39 injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, the criminal process for his extradition nonetheless has an extended direction ahead.
Monday's High Court verdict observed a faraway hearing on July 21, whilst his recommend Edward Fitzgerald QC had argued that Judge Goozee's February extradition order become incorrect to maintain that there was not anything unusual about his intellectual situation.
The decide changed into incorrect to discount the excessive chance of suicide on the premise that it became not immediately', Fitzgerald had argued.
Barrister Helen Malcolm QC, arguing on behalf of the Indian government, had countered to reiterate the assurances supplied via the Indian authorities of ok mental fitness take care of the accused on being extradited to Barrack 12 at Arthur Road Jail in Mumbai.
Meanwhile, all different grounds raised by means of the defence, which include the admissibility of proof supplied through the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), have been disregarded.
The choose's technique to the identification of a prima facie case become accurate. Given the check he needed to observe, and the extent of evidence relied upon towards the appellant, he turned into entitled to finish that each of the requests disclosed a prima facie case, the High Court ruling notes.
Modi is the difficulty of two units of criminal lawsuits, with the CBI case referring to a massive-scale fraud upon the PNB through the fraudulent obtaining of letters of venture (LoUs) or loan agreements, and the ED case relating to the laundering of the proceeds of that fraud.
He also faces extra charges of "causing the disappearance of proof" and intimidating witnesses or crook intimidation to motive death, which had been added to the CBI case.
Comments