Jane v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania

In extradition proceedings, the adequacy of a foreign-state assurance must be assessed in the light of all available information, including the person’s likely place of detention and the conditions there. An assurance need not identify a particular cell or provide photographs if its terms sufficiently address the identified risk. Mutual trust is relevant where the assurance is given by a friendly state governed by the rule of law, although the court must still assess any real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An assurance limiting detention to refurbished or renovated parts of a prison, together with a minimum space guarantee, was sufficient on the evidence to dispel the real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

The appeal concerned an order of the Deputy Senior District Judge dated 3 November 2017 requiring the appellant to be extradited to Lithuania for trial. In an earlier judgment, the Divisional Court had found a real risk that detention in Lukiskes remand prison would breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but stayed the appeal to allow Lithuania to provide a sufficient assurance: [2018] EWHC 1122 (Admin).

Lithuania subsequently provided several assurances, including one dated 7 August 2018. The central issue was whether that assurance, considered with the evidence and earlier assurances, removed the real risk of impermissible treatment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The assurance dated 7 August 2018 was sufficient to show that the appellant would not face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. The court had previously determined that the appellant was likely to be held in Lukiskes remand prison. The further material did not undermine that conclusion, although detention elsewhere remained possible.
3. The adequacy of the assurance had to be assessed in the light of all available information. That included the likely prison, the evidence about its conditions, the terms of the assurance and the previous assurances. The court rejected the submission that the assurance had to specify the precise prison or cell.
4. Although an assurance identifying the actual cell, with descriptions or photographs, would usually be helpful, the assurance here clearly excluded overcrowding, which was the main identified problem at Lukiskes. It also limited detention to refurbished or renovated parts of the prison. The 2018 CPT report identified continuing problems with unrenovated cells but did not identify equivalent failings in renovated parts.
5. The principle of mutual trust was relevant. In Giese v Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 1480 (Admin); [2018] 4 WLR 103, the Divisional Court had recognised that assurances from friendly foreign governments governed by the rule of law should not ordinarily be subjected to technical suspicion. The CJEU’s decision in ML (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen) [2018] EUECJ C-220/18PPU likewise required an overall assessment of the available information.
6. Having regard to the assurance, the evidence concerning Lukiskes and the trust to be accorded to Lithuania, there was no real risk of impermissible treatment. Dingemans J gave the judgment; Hickinbottom LJ agreed with his reasons and the appeal was dismissed.

1. Divisional Court: The court’s earlier judgment found a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and stayed the appeal to allow Lithuania to provide assurances: [2018] EWHC 1122 (Admin).
2. Divisional Court: On reconsideration after the assurance dated 7 August 2018, the court dismissed the appeal.