Shumba & Ors v Public Prosecutor In Nanterre County Court, France & Ors

In extradition cases, Article 3 requires substantial grounds for believing that the requested person faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Prison overcrowding is especially significant where personal space may fall below 3m², but the assessment remains fact-sensitive and includes sleeping arrangements, freedom of movement and other detention conditions. Under the Extradition Act 2003, the court may seek specific and updated information from the requesting state before deciding whether extradition is barred. Passage of time in a conviction case is generally assessed from the time when the person became unlawfully at large. Article 8 requires an overall proportionality assessment, including the public interest in extradition, delay and the best interests of affected children.

Three appellants challenged orders for extradition to France under conviction European arrest warrants. All relied on Article 3 of the ECHR and section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, asserting a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in French prisons. The first and second appellants also relied on section 14 of the Act and Article 8 of the ECHR.

The evidence concerned possible detention at Fresnes, Villepinte, Nanterre or Fleury-Mérogis, including overcrowding, limited personal space, poor material conditions, restricted time outside cells and violence. The central Article 3 issue was whether the evidence justified immediate discharge or instead required further information from the French authorities.

1. Article 3. The court applied the principles derived from Ananyev v Russia, Muršić v Croatia and Aranyosi and Căldăraru. There must be substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose the person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. In prison-overcrowding cases, a strong presumption arises where personal space falls below 3m², subject to the relevant conditions identified by the European authorities.
2. The February 2018 report of the French Inspector General, together with the CPT material and other evidence, established substantial grounds for believing that the appellants might face such a risk. The evidence was material to the four prisons relied upon, but it did not establish where each appellant would be detained or the precise amount of personal space and other conditions that would apply.
3. Immediate discharge was therefore refused. Following Aranyosi and Căldăraru and the procedure used in Yaser Mohammed v Comarca de Lisboa Oeste, the court required the French authorities to answer specific questions about the institution, personal space, freedom of movement and other detention conditions. Final determination of the Article 3 ground was deferred.
4. Section 14. In a conviction case, the relevant period is the period since the person became unlawfully at large. The first appellant was a fugitive and could not rely on delay caused by his evasion. The second appellant had not been unlawfully at large since his earlier, subsequently annulled conviction. His challenge nevertheless failed because the period since the operative conviction did not make extradition unjust or oppressive.
5. Article 8. The district judges had undertaken the required overall proportionality assessment. The public interest in extradition, the seriousness of the offences and the outstanding sentences outweighed the interference with the appellants’ private and family lives. In the first appellant’s case, the child’s best interests were a primary consideration, but extradition would not sever the relationship. The appeals on section 14 and Article 8 were dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeals against the extradition orders were not finally determined on the Article 3 ground. The court requested further information from the French authorities. The first and second appellants’ appeals under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the ECHR were dismissed.