Arnas Civilka v Prosecutor General’s Office (Lithuania)

In an extradition case, an Article 3 challenge based on prison conditions must address the protection available to the requested person in the prison system as a whole, including those most vulnerable within its hierarchy. A general assessment of legally adequate protection is not confined to average or less vulnerable prisoners. Evidence that a person belongs to a particularly vulnerable group will not justify further safeguards unless it establishes a distinct and materially heightened risk of ill-treatment or a lack of legal protection. At the permission stage, a challenge that merely disputes the lower court’s factual evaluation will fail where there is no realistic prospect of demonstrating legal or evaluative error.

The appellant faced extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant in respect of allegations of fraud, forgery and related offences. The District Judge ordered extradition after rejecting an Article 3 challenge based on the risk to gay men within the Lithuanian prison caste system and the adequacy of state protection.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers. The appellant renewed his application, arguing that the District Judge had failed to assess his individual vulnerability, or alternatively should have required further information or protective assurances. The central issue was whether the challenge was reasonably arguable.

1. Permission refused. There was no realistic prospect that the Article 3 challenge would succeed on a substantive appeal.
2. The starting point was the Divisional Court’s decision in Bartulis [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin). That decision had considered the problem of the Lithuanian prison caste system and inter-prisoner violence, and had concluded that the problem was being addressed through a legally adequate response. The presumption of compliance with Article 3 therefore remained intact.
3. The assessment in Bartulis was not limited to a general or average prisoner. It addressed the position as a whole, including persons disadvantaged and vulnerable within the caste system. The fact that gay men were described as belonging to the lowest and most despised caste did not establish a separate, still lower category carrying a materially heightened risk or lacking the legal protection identified in Bartulis.
4. The District Judge had considered the appellant’s specific position as a gay man in the prison hierarchy. The relevant features included the treatment of violence, reductions in prison numbers, increased security, the Lithuanian action plan, and information concerning protection of LGBTQ+ rights. Those matters provided a sufficient basis for concluding that Lithuania could provide legally adequate protection.
5. Even if some criticisms of the District Judge’s treatment of background material were arguable, they did not undermine the central analysis. Further information or protective assurances were unnecessary. The renewed application was accordingly refused.

• District Judge Goozee: ordered extradition on 25 September 2020 after rejecting the appellant’s distinct Article 3 challenge.
• Murray J: refused permission to appeal on the papers on 14 February 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on renewal, refused permission to appeal.