Purcell & Anor v Public Prosecutor of Antwerp & Anor

In an extradition case involving prison conditions, the court must assess whether the individual faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. A request for further information under the Aranyosi process does not require a prior finding, or prima facie case, that Article 3 would be breached. The assessment is specific to the requested person and the conditions in which that person will be detained, rather than the general risk posed by prison conditions or industrial action. Reliable assurances from the requesting state are ordinarily assessed in accordance with the mutual trust due between judicial authorities. Evidence of poor conditions elsewhere in the prison estate does not establish a real risk where the individual will be held in a modern prison with adequate space and facilities.

Two joined appeals challenged extradition orders to Belgium under European arrest warrants. The appellants contended that overcrowding, poor prison conditions and possible prison-officer strikes created a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

The Divisional Court granted permission on the Article 3 ground so that further information could be obtained under the procedure described in Aranyosi and Caldararu. The Belgian authorities stated that both appellants would be detained at Beveren prison, a modern Dutch-speaking prison with spare capacity, adequate cell space, sanitary facilities and out-of-cell activities, and that strikes adversely affecting prisoners had ended. The central issues were whether the request for further information implied an evidential threshold, and whether the evidence established a real risk of Article 3 treatment.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The appellants had not displaced the presumption that Belgium would comply with its international obligations, or shown a real risk that extradition would breach Article 3 of the ECHR.
2. The Aranyosi process does not impose an evidential threshold before further information may be requested. The court must have reason to seek information, but the request does not imply that Article 3 would otherwise be breached or that a prima facie case has been established.
3. The assessment has two stages. The court must first consider objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence of deficiencies in detention conditions. It must then make a specific and precise assessment of whether substantial grounds establish that the individual will face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. A general risk in the receiving state is insufficient.
4. In applying that assessment, the relevant question was not the risk of prison strikes in itself, but the risk of strikes producing inhuman conditions for these appellants. The Belgian authorities’ information was read in context and with the trust and confidence due between judicial bodies of Member States. Although the assurance that there was no risk at all of detention during a strike overstated the position, its qualifying terms and overall tenor addressed the relevant risk.
5. The appellants would be held at Beveren. Its modern construction, spare capacity, cell space, separated sanitary facilities and provision for activities meant that overcrowding, inadequate facilities and lack of out-of-cell activity did not create a real risk. The possibility of spontaneous strikes did not alter that conclusion because such action was unlikely to produce inhuman conditions at Beveren.
6. The absence of an effective domestic remedy, even if established, did not itself create a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the joined appeals were dismissed. The court upheld the extradition orders after considering the further information obtained under the Aranyosi process.
• Divisional Court: permission to appeal was granted on the Article 3 ground to enable the Belgian authorities to provide further information. The permission decision is described in the judgment but no citation is given.
• District courts: extradition orders were made against Purcell and Pengel on 12 January 2016 and 11 October 2016 respectively. No citations are given.