Bank of India vs Nirav Modi: High Court examines fair trial rights for imprisoned litigants

High Court examines fair trial rights for imprisoned litigant in Bank of India vs Nirav Modi

The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, recently addressed significant issues concerning the fair trial rights of imprisoned litigant Nirav Modi in the case of Bank of India vs Nirav Modi. The case centred around a claim by the Bank of India to recover a debt of over US$8 million under a personal guarantee signed by Modi.

Presiding over the case was David Bailey KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The proceedings were set against the backdrop of Modi's incarceration at HMP Thameside, pending extradition to India on multiple criminal charges, including fraud and money laundering. Despite his legal challenges, Modi appeared in court via video link, representing himself as a litigant in person.

The court was tasked with deciding two primary applications from Modi. The first was a request to stay the proceedings on the grounds that his imprisonment prevented him from obtaining a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Modi argued that his lack of access to the internet and IT facilities in prison placed him at a significant disadvantage compared to the represented Bank of India.

In response, the Bank of India, represented by RWK Goodman LLP and Counsel Tom Beasley, contended that Modi had been provided with hard copy bundles and had effectively participated in previous proceedings. They argued that any inequality could be managed through appropriate case management directions, without necessitating a stay.

The court acknowledged the challenges faced by Modi due to his imprisonment, particularly his lack of access to the internet and IT facilities. However, it concluded that it was premature to determine whether these constraints would prevent a fair trial. The court decided to adjourn the stay application to the pre-trial review (PTR), allowing time for Modi's application for access to a laptop under the Access to Digital Evidence Policy Framework to be resolved.

The second application concerned Modi's request for the inspection of original contractual documents, which he claimed he did not recall signing. The court granted this request, allowing a forensic expert to examine the documents, as their authenticity was central to the case.

Throughout the proceedings, the court underscored the importance of ensuring procedural fairness and equality of arms, balancing the rights of both parties under Article 6. It issued directions to provide Modi with necessary legal resources and hard copies of documents to facilitate his defence.

The case highlights the complexities of ensuring fair trial rights for imprisoned litigants, particularly in civil proceedings involving significant financial claims. The court's decision to adjourn the stay application reflects a cautious approach, allowing for further assessment of Modi's ability to mount an effective defence.

Learn More

For more information on shareholder law, see BeCivil's guide to Shareholder Law.