Vasile Mihaila v JJudecatoria Piatra Neamt (Romania)

In an extradition challenge based on Article 3, a requested person must show strong grounds for believing that surrender would expose them to a real risk of prohibited treatment. Where the feared harm comes from other prisoners, the person must also show that the requesting state will not provide reasonable protection. Proof of a risk of serious harm alone is insufficient, and the burden does not shift merely because such a risk is shown.

Updated evidence must be assessed under the Aranyosi framework. General or systemic evidence must be objective, reliable, specific and properly updated. Evidence of isolated prison violence, particularly where conditions have improved and protective assurances exist, may fall short of the threshold.

The appellant appealed against a district judge’s order dated 16 November 2020 requiring his extradition to Romania under a conviction European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned sexual offences against two children and followed a Romanian sentence of ten years and four months’ imprisonment, confirmed by the Court of Appeal, Bacau, on 1 April 2020.

Permission was granted on a single ground. The appellant argued that, because of the nature of his offending, he faced a real risk of violence from other prisoners and would not receive adequate protection in Romanian prisons. He relied on his own evidence and reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The central issue was whether the evidence established the Article 3 threshold, including the first stage of the Aranyosi inquiry.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant failed to establish strong grounds for believing that surrender would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.
2. Where the risk emanates from non-state actors, including other prisoners, the relevant question is whether the requesting state is unable or unwilling to provide reasonable protection. The requested person must prove both a real risk of serious harm and an insufficient level of state protection. The burden does not shift merely because a risk of harm is demonstrated. This principle was drawn from R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
3. Because evidence had developed since the district judge’s decision, the court considered the up-to-date position, following Modi v Government of India, rather than focusing solely on whether the earlier decision was legally flawed. The further evidence had also to be decisive under Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi.
4. The 2022 CPT report did not establish a systemic or generalised risk specifically affecting prisoners convicted of sexual offences. Although it recorded inter-prisoner violence and particular concerns, it also recorded reduced violence compared with 2018, and the prisons identified were not those in which the appellant was expected to be detained.
5. The evidence therefore did not satisfy stage 1 of Aranyosi. No further inquiry or request for supplementary information was required. The Romanian assurance, described in Marinescu and others v Romanian Judicial Authority as binding between the states, supported the conclusion that protective measures were available.

• District judge: On 16 November 2020, ordered the appellant’s extradition to Romania.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted by Linden J. The appeal was dismissed on 23 January 2024.