Stal v Government of the State of Israel

In an extradition case engaging Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, general evidence of poor prison conditions is insufficient by itself. The court must assess whether there are strong grounds for believing that the individual faces a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

Relevant considerations include whether abuses are systemic and frequent, whether the individual has characteristics making him specifically vulnerable, and whether adequate protective and mental-health arrangements exist. A presumption that the requesting state acts in good faith may be displaced only by evidence possessing special force. Evidence and arguments that could reasonably have been advanced before the extradition judge will not ordinarily provide a proper basis for an appeal.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Tubbs’s decision of 26 November 2008 authorising his extradition to Israel. He had been convicted in Israel of sexual offences against a minor and was also wanted in relation to his failure to provide additional bail security and his departure from Israel before sentence.

The appeal was brought under section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003. The claimant argued that extradition would breach Article 3 because of Israeli prison conditions, his depressive illness and risk of self-harm, alleged bad faith by the requesting state, and the risk to prisoners from possible attacks on Israel.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Divisional Court held that the District Judge had correctly concluded that extradition would not expose the claimant to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. The conduct relied upon constituted extradition offences, and the appeal was concerned solely with Convention rights under section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The court applied the approach in Ullah v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323: a person resisting removal on Article 3 grounds must establish strong grounds for believing that, if returned, he faces a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. General reports must be kept in context. Following Miklis v Deputy Prosecutor General of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1032 (Admin), the court considered whether violations were systemic and frequent and whether the individual was specifically vulnerable.
3. The Public Defender’s report showed shortcomings in Israeli prison conditions, but also monitoring, professional prison administration and protective arrangements. The evidence did not establish violations that were systemic, frequent and widespread, or that the claimant’s depression and possible self-harm created the necessary real risk.
4. The claimant’s new account of ill-treatment in prison could properly have been presented to the District Judge and could not ordinarily found an appeal. In any event, the evidence concerning protection of vulnerable prisoners and developing remedial programmes fell far short of establishing an Article 3 risk.
5. The court applied the presumption of good faith described in Deya v Government of Kenya [2008] EWHC 2914. The claimant’s allegations of personal vengeance and threats lacked the special force required to displace that presumption. His concerns about attacks on Israel likewise did not establish a real risk of inhuman treatment. He was remanded in custody pending extradition.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against District Judge Tubbs’s decision of 26 November 2008 authorising extradition to Israel was dismissed.