KN v Sokolov District Court, Czech Republic (Rev 1)

In an extradition case, an Article 3 challenge based on prison vulnerability requires evidence that the requested person faces a real risk of ill-treatment and that protection would not be provided. A single, explained instance of protective custody does not, without more, require further information about detention conditions. Article 8 proportionality must take account of all sentences liable to be served; an unactivated suspended sentence cannot simply be disregarded. Comparisons between requesting-state and United Kingdom sentencing usually carry very limited weight, although the relative seriousness of the offences may reduce the public interest in extradition. An anonymity order may nevertheless be justified where publication would expose evidence of police cooperation and create a risk of physical harm.

The appellant faced extradition to the Czech Republic under two European Arrest Warrants relating to convictions and custodial sentences of 18 months and 10 months suspended. A district judge rejected challenges based on Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The district judge also made a factual error by treating the suspended sentence as activated.

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, the appellant relied on fresh evidence concerning alleged police cooperation, prison vulnerability, protective custody, sentencing disparities and his private life in the United Kingdom. The issues were whether any ground was reasonably arguable, whether further information about Czech detention conditions was required, and whether anonymity was justified.

1. Permission and fresh evidence. The renewed application for permission to appeal and permission to rely on the fresh evidence were refused. The fresh evidence was incapable of being decisive and there was no reasonably arguable ground of appeal.
2. Article 3. The court accepted that the evidence gave a reasonably arguable basis for saying that the appellant had supplied information to the police. That did not establish a real risk of threats or violence from persons who knew or perceived this. The Czech authorities were able to provide protection in custody, and there was no proper evidential basis for concluding that they would refuse to do so.
3. The evidence concerning one prisoner held alone for his own protection did not demonstrate systemic or generalised deficiencies, or a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. It therefore did not create a need to seek further information concerning the prisons identified for the appellant.
4. Article 8. The suspended 10-month sentence could not be put aside merely because it had not been activated. The strong default position required respect for the sentencing decisions and policies of the requesting state. The comparison between Czech and United Kingdom sentencing carried very limited weight, although the relative seriousness of the offences could reduce the public interest in extradition. The offending could not be regarded as trivial, the appellant’s private life in the United Kingdom was limited, and surrender was not arguably disproportionate: see HH [2013] 1 AC 338, Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551 and Love [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin).
5. Anonymity. Anonymity was continued because publication would identify the appellant as having cooperated with the police and could expose him to physical harm. The order was necessary, justified and proportionate, with liberty to apply.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): On the renewed application, permission to appeal and permission to rely on fresh evidence were refused. The court reached the same conclusion as Eady J, who had refused permission on the papers.
2. District judge: The underlying extradition challenges under Articles 3 and 8 had been rejected. The district judge made a factual error concerning the status of the suspended 10-month sentence, but that error did not establish a reasonably arguable appeal.