Visha v Criminal Court of Monza, Italy

In an extradition case involving alleged prison overcrowding, the court must assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that surrender would expose the requested person to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. General evidence of overcrowding does not, without more, establish that the individual will receive less than three square metres of personal space or lack adequate freedom of movement. Where the evidence does not require further inquiry, the court may proceed without requesting supplementary information. Specific and up-to-date assurances from an ECHR member state may dispel any Article 3 concern where they are given in good faith, have an objective basis, and are capable of verification. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for his extradition to Italy to face prosecution for offences including criminal association, exploitation, facilitation of prostitution and murder. Permission was granted on the issue whether the procedure identified in Aranyosi and Caldararu should have been followed because of an alleged real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment arising from overcrowding in Italian prisons.

The appellant relied on evidence from Antigone concerning prison conditions, particularly in Lombardy, and later sought to adduce further evidence concerning Monza prison. The respondent provided assurances identifying prisons in which the appellant would be detained and guaranteeing at least three square metres of personal space. The central issues were whether the evidence required further information from Italy, whether the fresh evidence should be admitted, and whether the assurances adequately addressed the Article 3 risk.

The Court, giving a single judgment, dismissed the appeal.

1. Article 3 is absolute. A requested person must show substantial grounds for believing that surrender would expose him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. In prison-overcrowding cases, there is a strong presumption of breach where the individual lacks a private sleeping place, at least three square metres of floor space, or sufficient cell space to move freely between furniture. Furniture may be included in the measurement, but in-cell sanitary facilities are excluded.

2. The Aranyosi and Caldararu procedure requires objective, reliable, specific and current evidence of detention deficiencies. If substantial grounds for an individualised risk exist, the executing court should seek supplementary information and postpone surrender while the risk is assessed. The court rejected the suggestion that Purcell and Pengel established a wholly separate evidential approach: the court must still be satisfied that further information is needed.

3. The first-instance judge was entitled to conclude that the evidence did not require further inquiries. Antigone could not identify the prison in which the appellant would be held. The overcrowding figures used a different measurement standard and did not establish that the appellant’s personal space would fall below three square metres or that he would lack free movement.

4. The court declined to admit the further evidence concerning Monza under section 27(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003. Even allowing latitude in a human-rights case, the evidence had peripheral value because Monza was only one possible destination and the later assurances excluded it.

5. The assurances were specific, current and given in good faith by Italy, an ECHR signatory and EU member state. There was an objective basis for believing they would be fulfilled, and their fulfilment could be verified through inspections and the prison complaints system. The court therefore had no sufficient reason to seek further information or to refuse extradition.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — [2019] EWHC 400 (Admin): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed. The order for extradition made by District Judge Jabbitt on 1 November 2018 was upheld.