The judgment in Vijay Mallya’s extradition hearing is due at Westminster Magistrate’s Court on Monday morning. Whether he wins or loses, a lengthy appeal process is likely to follow, meaning that even if the case goes against him, Mallya may not be extradited to India for months.
Sarosh Zaiwalla, Founder of London-based Zaiwalla & Co, explained the potential outcomes after the judgment.
If the judgment goes against him, he would have 14 days to appeal, during which period he wouldn’t be arrested, but would remain on bail. Should he choose to appeal to the Court of Appeal (he has the automatic right to do so), it could take months for the case to be heard as it gets very clogged up. This process could take up to 6 months.
Should this also go against him, he could apply for the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, which would involve another six-week period and if he won the right to do so that could take more months, even up to a year, to be heard by the Supreme Court. If the Crown Prosecution Service — on behalf of India — lost, a similar appeals process would be open to it.
How likely is it for a court of appeal to overturn the verdict of a lower court?
It all depends on the issues: it is certainly not uncommon. The courts are thoroughly independent.
Can India push for the process to be speeded up?
The Crown Prosecution Service (acting on behalf of India) could apply for an expedited appeal process but it is not common for this to be granted. You would have to show the need for urgency. We had a recent extradition where this was applied for: they gave it to us because a trial was set to take place on a particular date.
What happens if Mallya loses and doesn’t appeal?
In these circumstances, the CPS would send the magistrate’s decision to the Home Secretary who has 28 days — from the day of the judgment — to decide whether to send him back or not. Ultimately, it is with the minister.
Can the minister go against the judge?
If the judge finds for Mallya, the Home Secretary would not be able to overturn that. That would be unlawful. There are circumstances in which — for example, when the risk of death penalty is involved — the Home Secretary can decide not to extradite someone.
Some have suggested political elements are involved — for example, Britain not wanting to lose its appeal to Russian and other billionaires who have chosen to make Britain their home — or that Britain will be eager to please India. Do any of these factors play into the case?
This is absolutely not a political decision. The judiciary is thoroughly independent.
Should Mallya lose his fight against extradition, what happens to the other cases he is fighting in London, for instance, against the consortium of banks or UBS’s attempt to foreclose on the mortgage on his home?
What happens will depend on the judge. If he weren’t in the country they might allocate more time. The cases won’t disappear; there might be a logistical rejig.