The judges who ruled against fugitive jeweller Nirav Modi’s attempt to reopen his appeal against extradition said their judgment “presents a worrying picture of the use of proscribed treatment to obtain confessions, which was characterised as ‘commonplace and endemic’”.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Justice Jay said in their order: “Were it not for the statements made and assurances given by the govt of India, we would be minded to re-open this appeal.”
Nirav Modi could be extradited to India within a month after losing his final roll of the dice. He cannot go to the Supreme Court as permission to reopen his extradition appeal was refused at the high court on Wednesday. He could approach the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to try and get an injunction under Rule 39 preventing removal.
Such requests are granted on an exceptional basis, when applicants would face an imminent risk of irreversible harm.
Barrister Ben Keith, of 5 St Andrew’s Hill, told TOI: “The timetable for removal is 28 days from the decision of the HC. This might be delayed by an application to the ECHR, or if there is an ongoing immigration application, or other logistical difficulties. However, it seems that it is likely to be the end of the line.”
Nirav’s barrister, Edward Fitzgerald KC, had argued that Nirav’s appeal against extradition should be reopened after defence middleman Sanjay Bhandari won his appeal on the basis that he would face a real risk of torture at the hands of the investigating bodies in India.
