Owda v Court of Appeals Thessaloniki (Greece)

Extradition to a European Union member state will breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights only where there are strong grounds for believing that the individual faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. General evidence about prison conditions must be evaluated against the individual’s likely circumstances. A clear and reliable assurance from the requesting state may answer an overcrowding concern, particularly where mutual trust between member states applies. Evidence of a possibility of poor conditions, understaffing, police detention or inadequate medical care is insufficient without a properly evidenced individual risk. The threshold for showing that a person’s mental condition makes extradition oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 is high.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Greece to face prosecution for large-scale people trafficking. The District Judge ordered extradition on 22 November 2016. On appeal, the appellant relied on article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, through section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, alleging risks arising from overcrowding, transfer to unsuitable prisons, inter-prisoner violence, police detention and inadequate psychiatric care. He also relied on section 25 of the Act, contending that his mental condition made extradition oppressive.

The central issues were whether the District Judge had been wrong in rejecting the article 3 risk and whether the evidence met the high threshold for oppression.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellate task was to determine whether the District Judge was wrong, rather than to rehear the factual and evaluative issues de novo.
2. Under article 3, as summarised in R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323, extradition is barred only where there are strong grounds for believing that the individual faces a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In the context of a European Union member state, there is a strong presumption that the state will comply with its Convention and Charter obligations. That presumption can be displaced only by strong evidence.
3. Where objective, reliable, specific and current evidence establishes deficiencies in detention conditions, further information may be required under the approach in Aranyosi and Caldararu [2016] QB 921. The language of discounting a real risk means that sufficient information must support the conclusion that substantial grounds for believing in such a risk do not exist.
4. The evidence established that the appellant would overwhelmingly probably be detained at Diavata. The Greek authorities gave an assurance that he would receive at least 3m² of personal space. The court accepted the assurance, applying the mutual-trust principles discussed in Othman (Abu Qatada) v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 1. The assurance provided a complete answer to the personal-space objection.
5. The court distinguished the particular circumstances of Korydallos and Nafplio in Marku and Murphy v Greece [2016] EWHC 1801 (Admin). The evidence did not show comparable loss of control, intimidation or inter-prisoner violence at Diavata. Generic evidence that understaffing could create risks did not establish strong grounds for believing that this appellant would encounter them.
6. The court applied the approach in Achmant v Greece [2012] EWHC 3470, under which personal space marginally below 3m² may, in appropriate conditions, fall short of an article 3 violation. It was unnecessary to decide that issue because the assurance was accepted.
7. The evidence concerning police detention and medical care was insufficiently linked to the appellant’s individual circumstances. There were no grounds, still less strong grounds, for believing that he would suffer article 3 ill-treatment or inadequate psychiatric care.
8. Under section 25, the threshold for showing that physical or mental condition makes extradition oppressive is high, as stated in Turner v Government of the United States of America [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin). The appellant’s mental-health evidence, including the findings concerning self-harm and possible personality disorder and depression, fell far short of that threshold.

1. District Judge Zani ordered the appellant’s extradition to Greece on 22 November 2016.
2. High Court (Administrative Court) dismissed the appeal and upheld the extradition order: [2017] EWHC 1174 (Admin).