No dishonesty, no prima facie case, Mallya tells UK court
Justice Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing began a three-day appeal hearing against the magistrates court’s ruling that confirmed that there is a case for Mallya to answer in relation to multi crore rupee loans taken from IDBI in 2009.
The Westminster Magistrates Court that cleared businessman Vijay Mallya’s extradition in 2018 erred on several counts, his legal team told the high court of England and Wales on Tuesday in an appeal, insisting there had been no dishonesty on his part while securing loans.
Justice Irwin and Justice Elisabeth Laing began a three-day appeal hearing against the magistrates court’s ruling that confirmed that there is a case for Mallya to answer in relation to multi crore rupee loans taken from IDBI in 2009.
Mallya’s lawyer, Claire Montgomery, challenged several aspects of the magistrates court’s ruling delivered by judge Emma Arbuthnot, arguing that there are “multiple errors” of fact and understanding of documents in her judgement.
Tuesday was allocated for Montgomery’s submission, to be responded to by the Crown Prosecution Service lawyer on behalf of India, Mark Summers, on Wednesday. A ruling is expected on Thursday.
“There has been no misrepresentation, no concealments, nothing in documents to provide succour to the idea that there was dishonesty on the part of IDBI or Mallya, as alleged by the government if India”, she said.
“There is no evidence that the bank lending was intended to fail”, she added, referring to India’s charge of conspiracy on the part of Mallya and sone ifficers of IDBI. Mallya and Indian officials were present in the court.
According to Montgomery, the ruling by Arbuthnot is “flawed”, because she allegedly failed to consider all evidence. Moreover, she argued that the lower court’s judgement was replete with misconceptions and misunderstandings of documents submitted by India against Mallya.
These, Montgomery submitted, related to figures mentioned in accounts of Kingfisher Airlines submitted as part of loan applications, as well as the admissibility of witness statements in the prosecution case. Arbuthnot “missed things” that would have altered her judgement, she contended.
The defence’s argument remains that Mallya’s failure to repay loans was not due to an alleged conspiracy to defraud but due to “business failure and economic misfortune” that affected the aviation industry at the time.
“Dr Mallya is not a fly-by-night operator”, Montgomery told the judges.
Under the UK’s extradition law, a prima facie case needs to be established before a decision can be taken to extradite the requested person.
The high court had allowed the appeal on the ground of prima facie case, but rejected others such as risk to his human rights in the Arthur Road jail, inability to get a fair trial in India, the claim that he is being punished for his political opinions, and that there would be a ‘breach of specialty’ if he were sent to India.
Under the India-UK extradition treaty, ‘specialty’ is a rule that the person sought will be tried only for those offences mentioned in the extradition request, and not for others.
Montgomery had argued that there would be a ‘breach of specialty’ if he is extradited, because over 40 cases are ongoing against him in India, many with non-bailable warrants. There is no assurance from New Delhi that the other cases would be dropped if he is extradited, she had argued.
Mallya has been on bail since his arrest in London in April 2017.
