Only a remote risk of inhumane and degrading treatment if appellant extradited to USA

Extradition - alleged risk to the appellant of inhuman and degrading treatment if he was to be surrendered to the United States - difference in the presumption of good faith that operates in respect of extradition under Part II of the 1965 Act, and surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 - submission that the appeal must be allowed based upon the preliminary ruling - presumption of good faith and assessment of downstream risks - all extraditions are premised on two States reposing confidence in each other - Rettinger principles - a requesting State may dispel any doubts by evidence, but this does not mean that the burden has shifted - measurement of risk - real risk to this appellant - cannot be gainsaid that the risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in this case is neither immediate nor even proximate to any return of the appellant to the USA by extradition - the evidence does not establish that there is a real risk that the appellant might suffer that treatment in the future; it establishes a possibility of ill treatment – risk is remote - too remote to constitute substantial or reasonable grounds which establish a real risk that he will be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment if returned to the USA as a result of this request for extradition - appellant has not demonstrated that the trial judge was in error in finding that the appellant was not at real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment if he is returned to the USA for the purpose of a hearing into whether he has violated his parole - the appellant’s demonstration of the possibility that he may be subjected to inhuman and degrading ill treatment is not sufficient to demonstrate that he is at real risk of such ill treatment – appeal dismissed –