The Government of the Republic of Türkiye v Chan Demir

A court will not extradite a person where prison conditions create a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the ECHR, unless effective assurances sufficiently mitigate that risk. An assurance that a person will be held in a specified prison requires detention there, subject only to the short period reasonably needed for arrival and production before a court. Past breaches require a fair assessment of all the evidence and may substantially undermine confidence in future compliance. Article 8 extradition cases require a balancing exercise. There is no test of exceptionality, although the public interest in extradition remains weighty. In assessing dual criminality, the court should adopt a broad conduct-based approach rather than require an exact match between the foreign and domestic offences.

The Court heard three appeals concerning extradition requests by Türkiye. The common issue was whether extradition would expose the requested persons to a real risk of article 3 ill-treatment because of Turkish prison conditions and whether the requesting state’s Yalvac assurance could be relied upon.

Mr Demir appealed after the magistrates’ court refused extradition on prison-condition and dual-criminality grounds. Mr Sahin appealed the conclusion that extradition would not disproportionately interfere with article 8 rights. Mr Uckac renewed applications for permission to appeal on grounds including extraneous considerations, passage of time and article 8.

The Court also considered fresh evidence and materials received after the hearing, including UNCAT observations, and the effect of previous departures from the Yalvac assurance.

1. Fresh evidence. The Court admitted the post-hearing materials because they were unavailable earlier, the parties acted promptly, and admission was necessary in the interests of justice under the overriding objective.
2. Article 3 and assurances. On the evidence, including the UNCAT observations, Turkish prison conditions created a real risk of impermissible treatment absent effective assurances. The Yalvac assurance was sufficiently specific to require detention in Yalvac. Previous transfers had taken between 12 and 28 days, but delays exceeding 48 hours breached the assurance. The breaches resulted from culpable failures of co-ordination between the relevant Turkish authorities, although the Court found no deliberate bad faith. Further assurances were therefore required, including detention in Yalvac within 48 hours, video-link arrangements or equivalent four-square-metre accommodation for Mr Uckac, and monitoring and reporting of compliance. The prison-condition appeals were stayed pending those assurances.
3. Mr Demir. Dual criminality was not established. Although the conduct found proved in Türkiye would otherwise correspond to sexual activity with a child under section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Turkish decision did not determine that Mr Demir lacked a reasonable belief that the complainant was aged 16 or over. That element was not shown to be an inevitable corollary of the foreign findings. The appeal was dismissed and Mr Demir’s discharge upheld.
4. Mr Sahin. The article 8 assessment required balancing the strong public interest in extradition against the effects on family life. There was no requirement to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. The magistrates’ court had not erred in treating the offending, fugitive status, family hardship, delay and immigration consequences as relevant factors. The appeal was dismissed.
5. Mr Uckac. The renewed grounds were not arguable. The evidence did not establish a causal link between the request and political activity, nor that extradition would be unjust or oppressive because of delay. The article 8 balancing exercise was also open to the magistrates’ court. Permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeals concerning Mr Demir, Mr Sahin and Mr Uckac determined together. Mr Demir’s discharge was upheld; Mr Sahin’s article 8 appeal was dismissed; Mr Uckac’s renewed applications for permission to appeal were refused. The prison-condition grounds were stayed pending further assurances.
• Magistrates’ courts: Mr Demir’s extradition request was refused; Mr Sahin’s extradition was found compatible with article 8; Mr Uckac’s extradition was found compatible with his human rights and the case was sent to the Secretary of State.