Charles v Mugla Chief Public Prosecution Office Republic of Turkey

In extradition proceedings, assurances from the requesting state must be scrutinised for reliability, particularly where the person sought has previously suffered serious ill-treatment and is especially vulnerable. A real risk that the person will be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment is sufficient to bar extradition under section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003. The court must assess the practical effect of changed prison arrangements and any uncertainty in the assurance. Conditions involving effective solitary confinement may cross the Article 3 threshold, even where less restrictive conditions would not do so. The same conditions may make extradition oppressive under section 91 where they create a real risk of severe deterioration in mental health and suicide. Restrictions imposed to protect a prisoner do not arise by reason of sexual orientation for the purposes of section 81.

The appellant appealed against Senior District Judge Riddle’s decision to send his case to the Secretary of State with a view to extradition to Turkey. He had been convicted in absentia of rape and had previously spent several months in Turkish custody, where the court accepted that he had suffered serious ill-treatment.

The appeal concerned whether extradition was compatible with Article 3 of the ECHR, whether it would be oppressive under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether permission should be given to rely on section 81. The lower court had relied on assurances that the appellant would be held in an LGBT unit at Maltepe No 2 prison. By the time of the appeal that unit had been dismantled, and the proposed arrangements at Maltepe No 3 were materially different.

1. Appeal allowed. The assurances had to be examined against the principles in Othman v UK (2012) UK EHRR 1, including the changed prison arrangements and the uncertainty about whether the appellant would remain in the proposed LGBTI unit.
2. The previous assurance had ceased to reflect the actual position. The proposed assessment of whether the appellant would be accepted by existing prisoners introduced a real uncertainty. If he could not remain in the unit, he might be placed in conditions amounting to effective solitary confinement. The court accepted that he would not be returned to the general prison population, but an alternative LGBTI placement did not remove the identified risk.
3. The conditions in the Maltepe No 3 unit were impoverished and involved limited staff presence, no educational or occupational activity, little exercise, and possible isolation. Although ordinary accommodation in the unit might itself have been borderline, there was a real risk that effective solitary confinement for months would clearly constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. Extradition was therefore incompatible with Article 3 and barred by section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003.
4. The Article 3 conclusion also established oppression under section 91. The appellant’s serious PTSD, depression, anxiety and suicide risk meant that the identified conditions created a real risk of severe mental deterioration without effective intervention.
5. Permission to add the section 81 ground was refused. The restrictions would arise from the need to protect the appellant, rather than causally from his sexual orientation, so the ground was not arguable.
6. Garnham J agreed, adding that the accepted past treatment was Article 3 ill-treatment but did not constitute torture on the definition reflected in Schedule 8 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal and held that extradition was incompatible with Article 3 and oppressive under section 91.
• Senior District Judge Riddle: ordered extradition to be sent to the Secretary of State, relying on assurances concerning detention in Maltepe No 2 prison.