Woman to be extradited to UK for remainder of sentence for stalking

A woman will be extradited to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of her sentence for stalking-type offences and breaching a restraining order after the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal.

Farah Damji (55) argued before the five-judge Supreme Court that she should not be surrendered as she claimed alleged inadequacies of the UK prison system’s mental health services would have an impact on her fundamental rights.

Damji came to Ireland having absconded during her trial in London in February 2020. She was convicted in her absence at Southwark Crown Court of twice breaching a restraining order in April and June 2018 and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

She was arrested in Dublin in August 2020 and detained in custody in this State for seven months.

Jacques Nienaber says Leinster got it wrong in three areas against Toulouse

---

Your top stories on Wednesday: TikTok video prompts inquiry into HSE data breaches; roadside drug tests for drivers in serious crashes

---

Several farmers had a notion to grow ‘something different’ in west Cork in the 1980s. The idea took off

---

Michael McDowell: Irish ‘sneaking regarders’ of Trump are naive about the threat he poses to democracy

---

Damji, who was living at an address in Dublin, also has a criminal record for fraud and theft reaching back to the 1990s.

In the Supreme Court’s ruling, which was reached unanimously by the five judges, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said there was no basis for concluding High Court judge erred in his findings that led to him ordering Damji’s extradition.

Damji submitted that she has significant psychological vulnerabilities because of a history of experiencing abuse as a child and an adult, along with other traumatic events. She contended that her condition would likely deteriorate further if she was obliged to serve the balance of her sentence, expected to be relatively short, in the UK, he said.

She submitted an order for her surrender would contravene her rights under the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, which prohibits such orders from being made in situations where they would be incompatible with the State’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights or the Constitution.

A report by consultant psychologist Mr Graham Rogers, submitted on Damji’s behalf, referred to alleged struggles to receive a correct diagnosis while in the UK prison system previously. He concluded she had post-traumatic stress disorder and required a specialised form of therapy, called psychodynamic psychotherapy.

If imprisoned, he argued, she would not receive the medical treatment he had recommended for her.

The court found the evidence did not establish that Damji would be denied reasonable and required treatment while serving the short period left on her sentence.

Mr Justice MacMenamin had the impression that Damji’s case could be reduced to the proposition that the High Court judge should have accepted Mr Rogers’s reports as being determinative in relation to her constitutional or Convention rights, but “that cannot be the test”.

When closely considered, said Mr Justice MacMenamin, Mr Rogers’s reports fall “significantly short” of determining whether Damji would be placed at real or serious risk if the surrender order was made.

An assessment of a vulnerable person, while in detention or subject to European Arrest Warrant procedures, should be rigorous, the judge continued. However, “reasonable treatment” can only be seen in comparison to what the UK State authorities provide to the community, he said.

Mr Justice MacMenamin said it was not clear on the evidence that Damji would have access to the specific form of treatment recommended even if at liberty.

“It is not open to a person facing surrender to identify one highly specialised form of therapy, no easily obtained even by members of the community at liberty, and on that basis contend that their surrender should be refused,” said the judge.

All arrangements for the execution of the surrender order is a matter for the High Court, he added.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton, Ms Justice Marie Baker, Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe and Mr Justice Brian Murray all concurred with the judgment.