Grant v Public Prosecutor of Argentan, France

In an extradition case involving prison conditions, a general account of overcrowding is insufficient to establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. The requested person must provide clear, cogent and compelling evidence specific to the prison or prisons in which detention is likely. EU member states benefit from a strong, rebuttable presumption that they will comply with the ECHR and the Charter. Where personal cell space may fall below 3m², the Muršić presumption applies, subject to cumulative mitigating factors. Evidence that the requesting state will seek detention in a prison providing the required space may be sufficient where the relevant domestic judge retains the final allocation decision but the request is expected to be granted. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against District Judge Zani’s order of 14 December 2017 requiring his extradition to France to face trial for alleged offences concerning images of minors. The sole issue before the Divisional Court was whether extradition was barred by section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 because imprisonment in France created a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR.

The likely establishments were Le Mans and Caen. The appellant accepted that Le Mans provided sufficient personal cell space but argued that there was a real risk of detention at Caen, where overcrowding and cell measurements were relied upon.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was not wrong to conclude that the evidence did not demonstrate a real risk that the appellant would be detained in a multi-occupancy cell affording less than 3m² of personal space, excluding sanitary facilities.
2. Under section 21A(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003, discharge is required where extradition would be incompatible with Convention rights. Article 3 is absolute, but prison conditions must attain a minimum level of severity. Under Muršić v Croatia (2017) 65 EHRR 1, less than 3m² of personal space gives rise to a strong presumption of violation, rebuttable only by cumulative factors including short, occasional and minor reductions, sufficient freedom of movement and out-of-cell activities, and generally appropriate detention conditions without aggravating features.
3. EU member states are strongly presumed to comply with their ECHR and Charter obligations. That presumption can be displaced only by evidence of the necessary quality showing a real risk to the individual. General reports on the French prison estate lacked the required specificity because they did not concern Caen or Le Mans.
4. The Caen statistics did not objectively establish that the appellant would receive less than 3m². In any event, the fourth response showed that Le Mans was normally used for the relevant jurisdiction, that the requesting authority would ask the Remand and Freedom Judge to allocate the appellant there, and that the request was expected to be accepted. That evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that detention at Caen presented no real risk.

• District Judge: On 14 December 2017 District Judge Zani ordered extradition to France and rejected the Article 3 challenge.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal, permitted by William Davis J, was dismissed. The court also considered further information served after the extradition hearing.