Sigitas Janusevicius v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania

In an extradition appeal, a requested person’s particular history of gang violence or intravenous drug use does not, without more, constitute a special risk outside a prior general assessment of prison conditions. The question remains whether the requesting state provides legally adequate protection against a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. A general assessment may be distinguished where it did not address a materially different risk, such as an individual medical or mental health condition. For section 25 oppression based on suicide risk, the court must assess whether the risk arises from a mental condition removing the person’s capacity to resist the impulse, whether the risk is substantial, and whether the high threshold of oppression is met. An individualised treatment plan need not exist before extradition where clear information establishes that assessment and treatment will be promptly provided on arrival.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Baraitser on 21 November 2017. He was sought by Lithuania to serve custodial sentences following convictions for swindling and assaults on a prison officer. Permission was granted to appeal on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and permission was later granted to add a ground under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, based on mental health-related suicide risk.

The Article 3 case relied on the appellant’s history of gang-related violence, intravenous drug use, and serious mental health conditions. The central issues were whether those matters distinguished the general prison-conditions assessment in Bartulis v Panevezys Regional Court (Lithuania) [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin), and whether extradition would be oppressive because of the risk of involuntary suicide.

1. Article 3. The appeal was dismissed on the Article 3 ground. The court proceeded on the basis that Bartulis v Panevezys Regional Court (Lithuania) [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin) was correct. A single High Court judge would not entertain a collateral attack on that Divisional Court test case without a properly developed argument and an opportunity for the respondent to answer it (paras [5]-[7]).
2. The appellant’s history of gang targeting did not fall outside Bartulis. It illustrated the prevalent inter-prisoner violence, including violence arising within the prison caste system. The operative issue remained whether the Lithuanian authorities provided legally adequate state protection against violence by non-state agents. The evidence did not displace the presumption of compliance or establish a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment (paras [16]-[17]).
3. The same conclusion applied to the appellant’s history of intravenous drug use. Drug prevalence, drug-related violence, hepatitis risk, and the absence of a needle-exchange programme had been considered in Bartulis. The available information, including the confirmation that opioid-substitution treatment would continue in custody, did not justify rejecting the respondent’s information on an overall assessment of the evidence (para [18]).
4. Mental health conditions were materially different. They were not within the general Bartulis assessment, apart from its separate section 25 issue. Applying Aswat v United Kingdom App. No. 17299/12, the relevant considerations included the mental condition and the adequacy of medical assistance and care in detention. The available information confirmed that medication, psychological therapies, prompt assessment, and suitable accommodation could be provided. A prior individualised plan was unnecessary (paras [19]-[22]).
5. Section 25. The court dismissed the oppression ground. The focus was stage 3 of the analysis in Farookh v Germany [2020] EWHC 3143 (Admin): the appellant’s position after arrival in the Lithuanian prison. Section 25 could in principle apply to an involuntary suicide risk even where the authorities discharged their responsibilities, but this was not such a case. The evidence showed that appropriate preventative measures, early suicide-risk assessment, clinical handover, and an individualised plan would be put in place as soon as the appellant arrived. There was no substantial risk arising from a mental condition removing his capacity to resist the impulse to commit suicide, and the high threshold of oppression was not met (paras [24]-[30]).
6. The appeal was dismissed on both grounds. A detailed assessment of the appellant’s publicly funded costs was ordered (para [31]).

• District Judge Baraitser: extradition ordered on 21 November 2017.
• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal dismissed on Article 3 and section 25 grounds: [2021] EWHC 2346 (Admin).