European Court Of Human Rights Allows Extradition To US And Lifts Rule 39 Injunction

BSQ have issued a press release responding to the decision of the Fourth Section  of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of the Horne v UK.

BSQ partner Roger Sahota was instructed together with Ben Keith of 5 Saint Andrews Hill.

Lawyers acting for Jonah Horne say they will be closely monitoring his treatment in the United States after the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision yesterday refusing his appeal against extradition to Florida.

Horne faces charges of second-degree murder in a drug related allegation. His legal team argued that his extradition should be blocked on the grounds that he was likely to receive a sentence of life without parole upon conviction. Whole life sentences breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Strasbourg Court held that there was no “real risk” of Horne receiving a life without parole sentence upon conviction on his return to the US. The Court rejected the arguments put forward by his lawyers, although it failed to refer specifically to the evidence that had been obtained from US legal experts in support of Horne’s argument in it’s judgment.

in Horne‘s case the US Prosecutor provided an “assurance” that Horne would only be tried for second-degree murder and that the Prosecution would not seek a whole life sentence of more than 40 years imprisonment on conviction.

However, Horne's legal team argued that such assurances did not bind the sentencing court, as the determination of his final sentence falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the sentencing judge. Scott Pribble, a legal expert from the Florida Public Defender's office cited by the Defence emphasized that prosecutors lack the authority to dictate sentencing outcomes, which rests with the judiciary: 

"prosecutors (who represent the executive branch) not only lack the authority to compel a sentencing judge (a member of the judicial branch) to impose any particular sentence, they are in fact constitutionally prohibited from interfering in the exercise of judicial discretion and decision-making. Conversely, a judge has no authority over the prosecutor's discretion as to what charges to bring against an individual3 or whether to seek the death penalty. These fundamental rules have been upheld and reiterated time and time again by the Florida Supreme Court.”

Mr Pribble also said that Florida Courts routinely disregard sentencing recommendations from the prosecution – 

"Further, sentencing judges are free to completely ignore the sentencing recommendations or requests made by the prosecutor. This is not merely a legal possibility; it is also not particularly uncommon. In just the last few years in the 15th Judicial Circuit judges have imposed sentences exceeding the sentencing recommendations or requests made by local prosecutors." 

The ECHR decision in Horne is the third in a series of recent judgements where the European Court has refused appeals against extradition from individuals claiming they would face whole life sentences upon return to the US. In each case, the Court found that there was no “real risk” of a life without parole sentence being imposed. The “real risk” test was set out by the court in the landmark decision of the ECHR Grand Chamber in the case of Sanchez-Sanchez vs United Kingdom. The decisions in these recent cases – The cases Sanchez-Sanchez, Balahan v Sweden and now Horne – indicate that the court has set a very high bar when assessing whether there is a “real risk” of a life sentence. 

It remains to be seen whether Florida judges will take any heed of the ECHR judgement when dealing with Mr Horne‘s case. It would certainly be an embarrassment for the UK, the Court and the US where a Florida Judge to disregard the Prosecutors assurances, as he or she would be entitled to do.

Ben Keith, barrister of 5SAH and Roger Sahota of Berkley Square Solicitors represented Mr Horne and were instructed in the leading extradition case of Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 22854/20 before the Grand Chamber. As well as Patrick Bijan Balahan v Sweden (Application no 9839/22) where the appellant faced a life sentence with a minimum terms of 61 years.

Ben Keith commented: “It is difficult to see how anyone will be able to show that they will receive a life without parole sentence. The evidential test has become much higher with recent cases.’

Roger Sahota commented: “The Court has yet to grapple with the issue of the total lack of parole in most US states and federal cases. The evidence is that there is not effective parole system. But it has not been tested as the Court consistently finds that there is no real risk.”

If you need an international crime lawyer, our highly experienced criminal defence solicitors would be happy to assist you with your case,