Thomas Costappis v Nicosia District Court, Republic of Cyprus

A Part 1 extradition warrant is valid if, read with any permitted further information, it gives sufficient particulars to determine whether the alleged conduct is an extradition offence and whether any bar to extradition arises. The narrative need not be perfectly organised, provided the alleged criminal conduct can be identified and assessed.

For article 3 ECHR, a sufficiently specific assurance about personal cell space may be relied on, but it does not remove the need for a holistic assessment of detention conditions. Bare compliance with the minimum personal-space threshold, combined with serious wider defects in prison conditions, may create a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Fresh evidence may justify allowing an extradition appeal subject to further information from the requesting state.

The appellants appealed against orders made by District Judge Turnock on 12 October 2023 requiring their extradition to Cyprus for prosecution for alleged fraudulent mortgages over land sold to another person.

They challenged the sufficiency of the particulars in the Part 1 warrants, whether the alleged conduct amounted to extradition offences, and compatibility with articles 3 and 8 ECHR. They also sought to rely on fresh evidence concerning prison conditions in Cyprus, including a May 2024 report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and updated expert evidence.

The central questions were whether the warrants contained adequate particulars, whether the allegations satisfied the dual-criminality requirement, and whether extradition would expose either appellant to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or disproportionate interference with family life.

1. Particulars in the warrants. The warrants, read with the further information, sufficiently identified the alleged conduct. The 1998 sale was background. The alleged offending commenced in 2005, when the land was said to have been dishonestly registered in the appellants’ names or in the name of the first appellant’s company and subsequently mortgaged between 2005 and 2010. The narrative was capable of being understood despite some lack of clarity. It enabled assessment of extradition offences, seriousness and specialty protection. Grounds 1 and 2 therefore failed (paras [27], [31]-[33]).
2. Extradition offences. The alleged conduct, taken at its highest, involved deliberate and dishonest registration and mortgaging of land known not to belong to the appellants. That supplied sufficient mens rea for conduct corresponding to obtaining property by deception under section 15A of the Theft Act 1968, or fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (paras [31]-[33]).
3. Article 3. The Ministry of Justice had given an express and specific assurance that each appellant would have at least three square metres of personal space. It was permissible to treat that as an assurance from an appropriate authority, and it could be objectively monitored. The assurance removed the risk arising from cell space alone, but did not resolve the wider assessment required by Muršić. The court had to consider the detention conditions holistically, including sanitation, ventilation, natural light, beds and mattresses, and out-of-cell activities (paras [46]-[50]).
4. The fresh evidence demonstrated significant systemic problems in Nicosia Central Prison. The assurance guaranteed only the bare minimum of personal space and did not address the wider defects. Taken together, those matters established a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The appeals would therefore be allowed on ground 4 unless the respondent supplied adequate supplementary information addressing the identified risks (paras [49]-[51], [60]-[62]).
5. Article 8. The judge was entitled to regard the alleged offending as serious and to reject unsupported assertions that the appellants’ businesses could not survive their extradition. The absence of dependent children or vulnerable adults was not itself a factor favouring extradition, but it reduced the weight attached to the family-life interference. The article 8 challenge consequently failed (paras [58]-[60]).

• District Judge Turnock: ordered the appellants’ extradition on 12 October 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed grounds 1, 2 and 5. On fresh evidence, it held that extradition was incompatible with article 3 ECHR unless adequate supplementary information was provided. Final orders were deferred pending that information (paras [8], [60]-[62]).