A & ANOR. v DEPUTY GENERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF THE LYON COURT OF APPEAL & ANOR.

At Aranyosi Stage 3, the court must evaluate all available evidence and decide whether the real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment can be discounted. In extradition cases, a personal-space figure below 3m² creates a strong presumption of violation, but it is not an absolute or binary threshold. Questions of fact, degree and statistical probability remain relevant. Medical-condition cases require an intensely fact-specific assessment of the individual’s condition, the likely effects of detention and the requesting state’s proposed medical arrangements. Generalised assurances may suffice for ordinary conditions, but complex conditions may require more specific information. The appeals were dismissed because the risks were capable of being discounted on the evidence.

The judgment concerned two appeals against extradition to France. In an earlier judgment, the court had found that Aranyosi Stage 1 was satisfied and had sought supplementary information under Article 15(2) of the Framework Decision.

The supplementary information addressed prison accommodation, overcrowding and healthcare at institutions relevant to each appellant. The issues were whether the information permitted the court to discount a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment, how the 3m² personal-space benchmark should be applied, and whether the stringent Article 3 threshold used in deportation and expulsion cases applied equally to extradition.

1. Stage 3 assessment. The French authorities had not answered every question comprehensively, but this was not a wholesale failure of engagement. The court was required to conduct the Stage 3 evaluative exercise on all the material available and decide whether the Article 3 risk could be discounted. The court was also entitled to take account of mutual respect and confidence between Convention states and the presumption of compliance with Article 3.
2. Personal space. The principles in Mursic v Croatia applied to extradition. Three square metres per detainee was the relevant minimum standard, and falling below it generated a strong presumption of violation. The figure was not an absolute tipping point. The extent of any shortfall, its frequency, the overall detention conditions and the probability of the individual experiencing the shortfall were relevant. The evidence concerning Rennes-Vezin showed that the risk to Mr Esmaili could properly be discounted.
3. Medical conditions. The court adopted an intensely fact-specific approach. The assessment had to focus on the individual’s vulnerabilities, the likely conditions of detention and the availability of appropriate treatment. The healthcare information for Mr A, together with the principle of equivalence between the French prison system and the French national health system, enabled the evidential gaps to be filled. His hypertension, kidney condition and other physical and mental conditions did not establish a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment.
4. Threshold in deportation cases. The court declined to read across the stringent threshold articulated in Paposhvili, AM (Zimbabwe) and Savran to extradition. Extradition engages different considerations because the requesting state owes duties of care to prisoners. If a significant risk existed that a requesting state would fail systematically to provide essential treatment, extradition might be barred under section 25 or section 21A(1)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003.
5. Disposition. Both appeals were dismissed. It was desirable that Mr A and the French authorities receive an English and French list of his current medical conditions and medication at extradition.

• High Court, Divisional Court: In the earlier judgment, [2021] EWHC 2543 (Admin), the court found that Aranyosi Stage 1 was satisfied and requested supplementary information under Article 15(2) of the Framework Decision.
• High Court, Divisional Court: The present judgment assessed the supplementary information and dismissed both appeals.