Evaldas Urbonas v The Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania

In extradition cases engaging Article 3, a Council of Europe member state benefits from a presumption that it will comply with its Convention obligations. The presumption may be rebutted by clear, cogent and compelling evidence, approaching an international consensus, of structural or systemic failings. Where the alleged ill-treatment comes from other prisoners, the requesting state must also provide reasonable protection against that risk. Successive CPT reports may carry very considerable weight, but they must be assessed with the requesting state’s current responses and practical protective measures. Continued serious shortcomings do not by themselves rebut the presumption where the evidence shows recognition of the problem and a continuing willingness to address it.

Three appeals from decisions of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering extradition to Lithuania were heard together. The first appellant was wanted for prosecution, the second for prosecution for two alleged offences, and the third to serve the balance of an existing sentence. Each pursued only an Article 3 ground based on a real risk of violence or other ill-treatment by prisoners in Lithuania.

The appellants relied principally on the 2023 CPT Report, published after the relevant district-judge decisions or not considered before judgment. They argued that the report showed systemic inter-prisoner violence and inadequate protection. The central issue was whether the report, together with the other evidence, rebutted the presumption that Lithuania would comply with Article 3.

1. Appeals dismissed. The court held that the presumption that Lithuania would comply with its Article 3 obligation to provide reasonable protection against ill-treatment by other prisoners had not been rebutted.
2. The CPT’s successive reports, especially the 2023 CPT Report, were objective, reliable and specific evidence, current as at the December 2021 visits. They deserved very considerable significance and weight because of the CPT’s status, expertise and experience. The evidence established a real, long-standing and continuing problem of inter-prisoner violence, particularly affecting prisoners at the bottom of the informal hierarchy. Its principal contributing factors were the informal hierarchy, inadequate staff supervision and control, and illegal drugs.
3. The court found no evidence that the problem had deteriorated since Bartulis v Panevezys Regional Court (Lithuania) [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin) or Bazys and Besan v The Vilnius County Court, Republic of Lithuania and another [2022] EWHC 1094 (Admin). It nevertheless recognised that the problem had persisted. The Lithuanian authorities had recognised the problem and adopted measures including improved management responsibility, staff recruitment and training, measures against drugs and informal leaders, and protection and separation for prisoners fearing violence.
4. The marked reduction in disciplinary punishment for prisoners who refused to live in the general population was a strong indication of practical protection while the underlying problems were addressed. The court therefore found no clear, compelling evidence amounting to an international consensus of structural or systemic failings sufficient to displace the presumption.
5. The absence of a European Court of Human Rights pilot judgment, the continued extradition of persons to Lithuania by other Convention states, and the absence of a CPT public statement under Article 10(2) of the Torture Convention were, at most, confirmatory and carried limited weight.
6. It was unnecessary to decide whether there was a real risk in each appellant’s individual case. Permission to adduce the Liutkevicius report and Mr Barrowcliffe’s extradition figures was refused because the evidence did not materially alter the position. The court made no final ruling on the alleged duty of candour, but expressed a provisional view that the CPS should have asked whether further CPT visits or reports existed and considered informing the district judges that further information might become available.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division, Divisional Court): three appeals from Westminster Magistrates’ Court decisions ordering extradition to Lithuania were dismissed. The court considered the later 2023 CPT Report and related evidence, although it had not been considered by the district judges.