Experts tell court of Nirav’s health risk if extradited
‘MODI SEES THE WORLD IN A BLEAK WAY BECAUSE OF HIS DEPRESSION’
THE high court in London on Tuesday (11) began hearing evidence from two psychiatry experts to determine the level of suicide risk faced by Nirav Modi if he is extradited to India to face charges of fraud and money laundering.
The jeweller is accused of defrauding on loans worth an estimated $2 billion (£1.7bn) from Punjab National Bank (PNB).
Lord Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith and Justice Robert Jay heard from Andrew Forrester, professor of forensic psychiatry at Cardiff University, and Seena Fazel, professor of forensic psychiatry at Oxford University, in the final stages of the extradition appeal being pursued by the 51-year-old diamond merchant.
The two psychiatrists weighed up Modi’s level of depression, which could pose a “substantial” or “elevated” risk of suicide.
Both revealed conducting personal assessments of the fugitive at Wandsworth prison in south-west London, where he has been lodged for over three years, and reported he “only thinks of cutting or hanging if extradited”.
The court also heard that depression is classified as a sense of “hopelessness, worthlessness and pointlessness” and that Modi is currently on prescribed antidepressants, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), of medium grade.
His family history of suicide, related to his mother’s death by suicide, was also referred to as a factor.
“He sees the world in a bleak way because of his depression,” said Forrester, as he told the court of his diagnosis that Modi suffers from “recurrent depressive disorder of moderate severity” and poses a high risk of suicide.
However, Fazel’s analysis was that Modi appeared to be “mildly depressed”, which is assessed on the basis of certain set criteria such as sustained period of low mood and fatigability, or becoming tired very easily.
“He functions reasonably well, responds to questions intelligibly and did not present some of the other criteria for severe depression such as losing sleep, appetite or delusions,” said Fazel.
The case is listed for a three-day hearing this week, at the conclusion of which the two-judge panel is expected to hand down their judgment over whether there are mental health and human rights grounds preventing Modi’s extradition to India.
Should he be extradited, Modi will be held at Arthur Road jail in Mumbai.
Helen Malcolm QC, appearing for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on behalf of the Indian authorities, laid out the detailed assurances given in the case, which cover regular monitoring, medical care, weekly family visits, daily lawyer visits as well as removing “ligature points” from the prison that could be used for hanging.
“It would be a fair comment there is an element you would never be satisfied [with the government of India’s assurances],” Malcolm said.
Edward Fitzgerald QC, arguing on behalf of Modi, argued that both experts agreed that there was no “robust clinical plan in place” in India and a comprehensive individual care plan should be agreed ahead of the extradition.
The judges have indicated the case has now progressed beyond the stage of seeking further assurances from the Indian authorities and a judgment is likely at the end of the week. If Modi wins this appeal hearing in the high vourt, he cannot be extradited unless India is successful in getting permission to appeal at the Supreme Court on a point of law of public importance.
If he loses this appeal hearing, he can approach the Supreme Court on a point of law of public importance, to be applied for to the Supreme Court against the high court’s decision within 14 days of a verdict.
Modi is the subject of two sets of criminal proceedings, with a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case relating to a largescale fraud upon PNB through the fraudulent obtaining of letters of undertaking (LoUs) or loan agreements.
A case relating to India’s the Enforcement Directorate (ED) accuses the jeweller of laundering the proceeds of that fraud. He also faces two additional charges of “causing the disappearance of evidence” and intimidating witnesses or “criminal intimidation to cause death”, which were added to the CBI case.