UK Court Rejects Fugitive Economic Offender Vijay Mallya's Appeal Against Extradition Order - Synopsis
Dilpreet Singh 24 Apr 2020

Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya's appeal against his extradition order was dismissed by the High Court in the United Kingdom on Monday i.e. 20 April 2020.  

The Senior District Judge (SDJ) at the Westminster Magistrate's Court had ordered Mallya to be extradited back to India in December 2018 to face charges of financial irregularities, after a plea from the Indian Government. In February 2020, Mallya had favoured an appeal to the request. A two judges bench composed of Lord Justice Stephen Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing presided the appeal at the London Royal Courts of Justice. The Court considered and rejected 6 challenges to the 2018 order, wherein it was argued that the SDJ had erred in her approach towards the questions of law raised, and subsequent appreciation of evidence.

The judgment, handed down remotely by e-mail on the basis of the present Corona virus lockdown, clarifies that, in cases of extradition, the Court must convince itself only of the presence of a prima facie case against the requested individual and not dig into establishing the facts. It was therefore held that the facts indicated a case against the 64-year-old tycoon, which could lead a fair jury to believe the charges against him, and must therefore be deported to India to face trial and answer questions.

Dismissing Mallya's statement that the SDJ had to be certain of his guilt in order to pass such an order, it was held that

the role of an extradition court considering this question is to consider whether a tribunal of fact, properly directed, could reasonably and properly convict on the basis of the evidence. The extradition court is, emphatically, not required itself to be sure of guilt in order to send the case to the Home Secretary. The extradition court must conclude that a tribunal of fact, properly directed and considering all the relevant evidence, could reasonably be sure of guilt”.

On the basis of all the arguments concerning the lack of consideration of the facts and the admissibility of the same, the Court upheld the decision of the SDJ not to make a finding of evidence which determines the merits of the allegations against Mallya.

It is clear beyond any doubt that the SDJ directed herself properly. It is clear she had the criminal burden and standard in mind when she considered whether there was a prima facie case.

In our opinion, the SDJ did not make "a decision not to accept all the facts" in the essential sense. Clearly, she found a large amount of evidence from both sides. She understood what she needed to do, and she was well conscious of the responsibility and standard of evidence that would control any future trial. She was well aware of “the need to make a prima facie case or not”.

"It seems to us that there was material from which a properly instructed jury could draw a secure inference that the Appellant was knowingly behind all the steps that led to the applications for the loans being made in the forms in which they were".

With this appeal being rejected, the final appeal for the extradition of Mallya will now lie with the Secretary of State, Priti Patel, Home Secretary. However, it now has a maximum of 14 days to pursue leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Failing to do so, he will be deported to India within 28 days and eventually face trial on charges of fraud and money laundering to an estimated amount of Rs. 9000 Crores.

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com