Andrew Stewart Henderson Campbell v Court of Thrace (Greece)

In extradition cases based on prison conditions, recent general findings by an appellate court should ordinarily be followed unless there is cogent evidence of a material adverse change or important new evidence. A specific assurance by the requesting state may dispel an Article 3 risk, but credible evidence that a similar assurance was breached may undermine both the assurance’s evidential value and the adequacy of monitoring. Detailed, reasonably precise hearsay evidence from a reliable source may be sufficient to raise a real risk and require the requesting state to respond before surrender is ordered. In an Article 8 challenge, the court must balance the individual and public interests, giving substantial weight to the seriousness of the offending, the fugitive status of the appellant and the sentencing decision of the requesting state.

The appellant challenged an order by District Judge Goldspring directing his extradition to Greece under a European arrest warrant. He was wanted to serve a six-year sentence for money laundering imposed following a trial in absentia.

Permission to appeal was granted on Article 3 ECHR grounds concerning prison conditions, particularly the assurance that he would receive at least 3 sq. m. of personal space in Komotini Detention Facility. The Article 8 ground was renewed and heard at the same hearing. The central issues were whether new evidence concerning compliance with similar Greek assurances created a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment, and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s private and family life.

1. Article 3. The appeal on the prison-conditions ground was adjourned. Recent general findings of the Divisional Court concerning Greek prisons should not be departed from without cogent evidence of a material adverse change or important new evidence. The evidence did not justify departure from Sula v Greece on staffing, violence or general prison conditions.
2. The decisive issue was the assurance of at least 3 sq. m. of personal space. Credible and cogent evidence that a similar assurance given in Owda v Greece had not been honoured could affect the requesting state’s record of compliance and the adequacy of its monitoring mechanism, consistently with Othman v UK.
3. The evidence of Prof. Tsitselikis, based on a detailed interview with Owda in the presence of his lawyer, was admissible hearsay and was sufficiently specific and reasonably precise. It was prima facie evidence capable of raising a real risk that the assurance would not be honoured. The Greek authorities were therefore to be given an opportunity to answer the evidence before a decision on surrender.
4. Article 8. Permission to appeal was refused. The judge had correctly balanced the appellant’s private and family life against the public interest in extradition. The appellant’s fugitive status, the seriousness of the offending and the length of the sentence carried substantial weight. His relationship with his son was limited, and the evidence did not show a significant impact on the son or a condition requiring treatment unavailable in Greece.
5. The proposed fresh occupational-therapy evidence could not alter the Article 8 balance, so it was unnecessary to determine whether it should have been obtained earlier.

• District Judge: Goldspring rejected the Article 3 and Article 8 objections and ordered extradition.
• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal was granted on Article 3 grounds. The Article 3 appeal was adjourned for further information from the Greek authorities. Permission to appeal on Article 8 grounds was refused.