Sperauskas v Public Prosecutors Ofice of Lithuania

In a health-based extradition appeal, the court should assess the evidence through a structured three-stage approach: identify the individual’s medical condition and its practical effects; assess whether the requesting state’s medical care and arrangements meet the identified concerns; and then apply the relevant statutory and Convention thresholds.

An EU member state is presumed to provide adequate prison healthcare, but specific and concrete assurances may be required where properly evidenced individual needs are raised. The court must assess whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive under Extradition Act 2003, or incompatible with Articles 3 or 8 ECHR. Fitness to plead or stand trial is ordinarily for the requesting state to determine, unless unfitness is inevitable. The appeal was dismissed, subject to arrangements ensuring that key medical information accompanied the appellant.

This was an extradition appeal against an order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Ikram on 10 October 2017 under an accusation European Arrest Warrant concerning alleged fraudulent company mismanagement. Permission to appeal was granted by Cutts J on 18 June 2020.

The appellant relied on fresh medical and occupational therapy evidence concerning psoriatic arthritis, the effects of a stroke, functional difficulties, communication problems and vulnerability to Covid-19. The three grounds alleged that extradition would be unjust or oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, and incompatible with Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR. The central issues were whether the evidence established a relevant risk, whether Lithuania’s assurances and prison arrangements adequately answered the identified concerns, and whether further evidence or procedural safeguards were required.

1. Outcome. The court rejected all three grounds of appeal. The evidence did not establish that extradition crossed the section 25, Article 3 or Article 8 thresholds. The court did not make the formal dismissal order immediately because arrangements had first to be agreed for key medical information and the respondent’s assurances to accompany the appellant on extradition.
2. Structured assessment. Adopting the approach in Magiera [2017] EWHC 2757 (Admin), the court treated the issues under section 25, Article 3 and Article 8 as overlapping. It first made an intense assessment of the appellant’s condition and daily needs. It then assessed the extent to which Lithuania could meet adverse effects through medical care and other arrangements. It finally applied the relevant statutory and Convention tests.
3. Presumption and assurances. The presumption that Lithuania would comply with its general Article 3 duty, recorded in Bartulis [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin), had not been rebutted. Lithuania was presumed to provide adequate healthcare. Nevertheless, specific concerns supported by individual evidence required an adequate response. The further information of 13 August 2020 gave sufficiently specific details and concrete steps addressing the occupational therapist’s 12 identified needs. Generalised statements would not have been sufficient.
4. Covid-19 and transfer. The information about quarantine, monitoring, testing, restrictions and sanitisation adequately addressed the Covid-19 concerns. No specific evidence identified a particular transfer or transit measure that would probably be omitted without a further assurance. The existing presumption therefore sufficed for those arrangements.
5. Fitness and mental condition. The question was whether the appellant’s condition made extradition unjust or oppressive, not whether he was fit to plead or stand trial. Applying Hewitt [2009] EWHC 2158 (Admin), fitness issues would ordinarily be determined by the requesting state, unless unfitness were inevitable. There was no basis to conclude that the Lithuanian authorities could not assess and respond to any deterioration or communication difficulty.
6. Safeguard. No extradition was to occur until the parties had identified a practical mechanism ensuring that the key medical information, the appellant’s needs and Lithuania’s stated provision remained visibly available to the authorities responsible for him. The court reserved the formal order pending that further information.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the extradition order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Ikram on 10 October 2017. Permission to appeal was granted by Cutts J on 18 June 2020.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the court rejected all three grounds but deferred the formal dismissal order pending agreement and consideration of arrangements for accompanying medical documentation.