London Eye: Now for that other Nirav Modi case

The judgment delivered Wednesday by Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay was emphatic in dismissing Nirav Modi’s appeal. That appeal was made solely because of his poor mental health and his suicidal tendencies. In allowing the appeal on this one ground, the High Court had accepted all other case findings earlier by the magistrate who had ordered Nirav Modi’s extradition on February 25 last year.

The magistrate’s court had ruled, and the High Court confirmed that there was a prima facie case of fraud and money laundering against Nirav Modi and that he would get a fair trial in India.

In their ruling on Wednesday on the sole ground of mental health, Justices Jay and Stuart-Smith ruled that “we are far from satisfied that Mr Modi’s mental condition and the risk of suicide are such that it would be either unjust or oppressive to extradite him.”

Describing his declared mental condition, the judges ruled that “we accept that Mr Modi’s condition has been and is a fluctuating condition which has generally been characterised as moderate, though there have been times when it has deteriorated temporarily to be properly characterised as severe and other times when there have been features indicative of a characterisation as mild.”

The judges ruled that any risk of suicide cannot be considered in a vacuum, given the added Indian government assurances through the course of the appeal hearing. The judges said they accept the Indian government’s assurance that there would be “suitable medical provision and an appropriate plan in place for the management and medical care of Mr Modi.”

The judges spelt out four grounds for their refusal to accept a suicide risk as a reason to block extradition: “Mr Modi neither is nor is very likely to be at the most severe end of the scale of depressive illness. Second, he has so far displayed no features of psychotic illness. Third, although he has exhibited persistent suicidal ideation, he has neither attempted suicide or deliberate self-harm nor disclosed plans to do so, except in the vaguest and most general way. Fourth, the steps are taken to render Barrack 12 safe and to ensure that there is effective constant monitoring to reduce both the risk of attempted suicide and the prospect of suicide being committed.”

The Indian government’s assurances, the judges noted, are “in several respects more comprehensive” than the medical regime currently in place for Nirav Modi at the Wandsworth prison in London, where he has been detained since March 20, 2019. Some bail applications have been turned down because no serious risk of suicide was seen.

But all of the Indian government’s efforts, particularly the painstaking investigation by both the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI, would amount to nothing if, after all this, Nirav Modi’s extradition is blocked because he has been granted political asylum. This second track waits invitingly for any fugitive to thwart the extradition law. And to the extent that the second track is also legal and runs parallel to, and often contrary to, the extradition track, points to a fundamental flaw in the famed British legal system.

But that could well be an intended flaw. Britain lives on foreign money, and this is by way of official admission from former Governor of the Bank of England Mike Carney, or the “kindness of strangers”, as he put it. Having a billionaire come to Britain and then have him forced back under intense media glare could be a serious disincentive to other billionaires coming into Britain and bringing in some of their billion with them.

As it stands, anyone investing — and investing not even spending — as little as 10 million pounds can walk in and get citizenship. Anyone investing a couple of million may have to wait three years and a bit. But the message is clear that Britain’s doors are open to anyone bringing wealth in. No legal bar stands in the way of such money being routed through some Swiss bank or offshore account. Few questions are ever asked about the source of such money being brought in.

And to keep these people in Britain and their money with them, extradition laws have been toughened to the extent that it can take millions of pounds and years to overcome all the obstacles that need to be cleared for an extradition to take place. And after all that has been done successfully, there sits the pathway of filing an asylum application and just staying on.

British officials usually argue that the court's ruling binds them. But it is the government that has created these laws. One way or another, or one way and another, these have been written to protect fugitives rather than governments who want them back.