Murphy v High Court Republic of Ireland

In an extradition case raising article 3 concerns, a targeted inquiry of the requesting state is required only where the evidence establishes an objective, reliable, specific and properly updated basis for a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The court must then assess the individual risk and, before refusing extradition on that basis, give the requesting state an opportunity to provide supplementary information. General concerns about prison conditions, unsupported calculations, or evidence that does not establish the relevant floorspace threshold do not require such an inquiry. The court may evaluate the identified detention institutions where the evidence does not establish an arguable article 3 risk in relation to any institution.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal against an extradition order made after a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Republic of Ireland. The warrant concerned accusations of false imprisonment, threats to kill and sexual assault. The district judge rejected arguments that detention would create a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment through overcrowding, prison conditions or inter-prisoner violence. Mrs Justice Eady refused permission to appeal on the papers on 11 March 2020. The central issue was whether the evidence required a targeted inquiry of the Irish authorities concerning overcrowding and the use of mattresses on cell floors.

1. Renewed application refused. There was no reasonably arguable ground of appeal and no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would succeed.
2. The applicable inquiry under article 3 involved three stages, as identified in Aranyosi and applied in Kirchanov: first, whether there was objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information capable of establishing a real risk; secondly, whether there were substantial grounds for finding an individualised real risk to the person concerned; and thirdly, whether the requesting state had been given an opportunity to respond by supplementary information before extradition was refused.
3. The floorspace principles in Mursic v Croatia included a rebuttable presumption of violation below 3 m² per detainee and a rebuttable presumption of compliance between 3 and 4 m², subject to the other relevant factors in the article 3 assessment.
4. The evidence did not establish the threshold required at the first stage. The expert evidence did not support the appellant’s assertions concerning mattresses on floors or less than 3 m² per detainee at Cloverhill. The argument concerning Midlands Prison depended on an unsupported calculation which preferred an older approximate figure over the expert’s specific evidence of a minimum cell size of 9.12 m².
5. The district judge had evaluated the written and oral expert evidence as a whole. His failure to refer specifically to mattresses did not show that he had overlooked material evidence. The evidence concerning inter-prisoner violence, inspections, other detention institutions and Covid-19 likewise disclosed no arguable article 3 ground. The approach was consistent with McLean, where the evidence concerning protection against inter-prisoner violence had fallen well short of establishing a breach of articles 2 or 3.
6. The order was that the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): extradition was ordered by the district judge on 10 October 2019, with the ruling given on 11 October 2019. The district judge rejected the article 3 objections.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Mrs Justice Eady refused permission to appeal on the papers on 11 March 2020.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused in [2020] EWHC 1338 (Admin).