JAY OWEN BARTLEY v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, COURT OF APPEAL OF EASTERN CRETE (GREECE)

In an extradition case, an Article 3 prison-conditions challenge must be assessed by reference to the prisons where the requested person is likely to be held. Extradition may be compatible with Article 3 where the evidence establishes that the relevant prison can provide the required minimum space and the requesting state gives a specific, legally compliant assurance that the requirement will be met.

A later change in occupancy statistics, or the passage of time, does not necessarily invalidate an assurance. Where the assurance is case-specific, continuing and not time-limited, fresh information or a further assurance is unnecessary unless circumstances materially undermine its reliability.

The appellant, a British national, had been convicted in Greece in his absence of murder or complicity to homicide and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. A District Judge ordered his extradition on 19 April 2021.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Dove J on 1 November 2021. The renewed application concerned Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly prison conditions and assurances. The appellant also sought an adjournment pending proceedings in Greece and relied on updated prison-capacity evidence.

The central issues were whether the existing assurance concerning detention conditions remained legally sufficient and whether the appeal should be adjourned or fresh evidence admitted.

1. Renewed application refused. Permission to appeal was refused. Permission to adduce fresh evidence was also refused because the evidence could not be decisive. The request to defer dismissal until 2 March 2022 was refused.
2. The District Judge had correctly focused on the prisons where the appellant was likely to be held, namely Alikarnassos and Chania. Chania did not give rise to a relevant Article 3 risk. Alikarnassos had the capability to provide the required minimum of 3m² floor space.
3. The Greek authorities’ further information dated 25 January 2021 contained a specific assurance that the required space would be provided throughout the appellant’s detention. The assurance was issued at senior level, identified the responsible detention-management authority and was properly assessed by reference to the criteria in Othman and Zagrean.
4. The assurance was legally sufficient. It was given by a Member State bound by the Convention, there was no reason to doubt its good faith or likely fulfilment, and Greece permitted inspection and monitoring by the CPT. The assurance was therefore to be approached on the basis of mutual trust and confidence.
5. Updated occupancy statistics did not undermine the conclusion. The District Judge’s decision depended on the prison’s capability and the specific assurance, rather than on occupancy figures alone. The updated material instead reinforced the importance of the assurance.
6. The assurance was not rendered obsolete merely because it was more than a year old. It was case-specific, not time-limited and concerned the appellant’s future surrender and detention. Neither the lapse of time nor other prison-related case law created an arguable basis for requiring further information or an adjournment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): renewed application for permission to appeal refused; fresh evidence and adjournment applications also refused.
• District Judge Robinson: ordered extradition on 19 April 2021 after an oral hearing.
• Dove J: refused permission to appeal on the papers on 1 November 2021.