Nesukaitis v Republic of Lithuania

Extradition should be refused on Convention grounds only where the evidence establishes a real risk of treatment reaching the high threshold required by Article 3, or an exceptionally high risk to life under Article 2. Poor or overcrowded prison conditions do not automatically cross that threshold. The court may take account of the assumption that a Convention state will comply with its obligations unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. A serious suicide risk may require refusal only in an exceptional case. Relevant medical information must be supplied to the requesting state so that appropriate protection and treatment can be provided.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Purdy’s order of 16 October 2012 for his return to Lithuania to face prosecution for robbery and violent behaviour arising from an incident on a train.

He relied on the alleged risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Lithuanian remand or police detention, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also relied on his mental condition and alleged suicide risk, invoking Articles 2 and 3. The central issue was whether the evidence established a sufficient Convention risk to bar extradition.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The evidence concerning overcrowding, poor accommodation and other deficiencies in Lithuanian prisons did not establish that extradition would contravene, or create a real risk of contravening, Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. The evidence was serious and described conditions which were far from satisfactory. However, unsatisfactory or borderline conditions do not necessarily reach the legal threshold for a Convention breach. The court was entitled to assume that Lithuania, as a Convention state, would comply with its obligations unless there was clear proof that it would not.
3. The approach in Janovic v the Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania [2011] EWHC 710 (Admin) was correct. The assessment required the court to consider the conditions described against the legal Article 3 threshold, rather than treating an expert’s description of conditions as determinative.
4. A suicide risk, considered independently of prison conditions, would have to be very high indeed before it could bar extradition. The circumstances here did not meet that standard. The court expressed difficulty with the factual conclusion reached in Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin) that suicide would occur if extradition took place.
5. Before extradition, the responsible authorities had to receive the appellant’s medical notes and psychiatric report. Care had to be taken to protect him during extradition and on arrival in Lithuania.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
• District Judge Purdy: on 16 October 2012 ordered the appellant’s return to Lithuania.