Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania) v Michailov

In an extradition claim engaging Article 3, a court must assess the requested person’s particular circumstances where general prison conditions and individual vulnerabilities may combine to create a real risk of ill-treatment. Even where existing assurances are insufficient, the court should ordinarily seek supplementary information directed to the person’s proposed detention conditions.

Case-management concerns about delay cannot, by themselves, justify refusing that information exchange. A conclusion that no further assurance could possibly address the risk must have an evidential and rational basis. The court may adjourn the appeal to obtain up-to-date, case-specific information.

This was a rolled-up application for permission to appeal and, if permission were granted, the substantive appeal against a district judge’s order discharging the respondent from extradition to Lithuania. The district judge held that extradition would create a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR, relying on problematic prison conditions together with evidence of the respondent’s physical and mental vulnerabilities.

The requesting authority challenged that reasoning as irrational. The central issues were whether the district judge should have sought further information under the Extradition Act 2003 and the Aranyosi procedure, and whether the appeal should be allowed, dismissed or adjourned pending current evidence.

1. Permission and procedural disposition. Permission to appeal was granted, but the substantive appeal was adjourned. The court neither allowed the appeal nor upheld the respondent’s discharge on the evidence then available.
2. The district judge was entitled to conclude that the combination of problematic conditions in Šiauliai Prison and the respondent’s physical and mental health evidence engaged the second stage of Aranyosi. The appropriate course was to seek supplementary information about the conditions in which this particular respondent would be detained.
3. The district judge’s conclusion that the existing generic assurances were incapable of rectification, whatever further information Lithuania might provide, and that Lithuania could not detain the respondent compatibly with Article 3, was irrational. The assurances had been given for a different purpose and did not address the respondent’s individual health needs.
4. There is no rigid requirement that a court first make a formal finding of real risk from general prison conditions before requesting further information. The court must have a proper reason for seeking information, but no fixed evidential threshold applies.
5. Delay caused by seeking further information cannot alone justify refusing the procedure. What is reasonable includes fairness to the parties, and otherwise the effect of Aranyosi would be seriously weakened.
6. Later evidence did not establish that the district judge’s decision would necessarily have been the same, nor that the appeal should immediately succeed. The High Court therefore directed a transparent and fair information-gathering exercise concerning the respondent’s current situation, including his wheelchair dependence, with further directions to be considered at the adjourned hearing.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the rolled-up application was granted permission to appeal, and the substantive appeal was adjourned pending further information.
• Westminster Magistrates' Court: the district judge ordered the respondent’s discharge from extradition on 15 November 2021, finding a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment.