Antonia Omirou v District Court in Nicosia, Cyprus

In an extradition case engaging Article 3 of the ECHR, systemic evidence of poor prison conditions does not itself establish that every requested person faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The court must conduct a prospective, fact-sensitive and holistic assessment of the general conditions, the individual’s vulnerabilities and any specific assurances given by the requesting state.

For a Council of Europe and EU member state, mutual trust supports a presumption that specific assurances will be honoured. That presumption may be rebutted only by cogent evidence. Assurances are assessed by their specificity, authority, practical reliability and the extent to which they address the identified risks.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for her extradition to Cyprus to face trial for alleged harassment, stalking and related offences. District Judge Minhas ordered extradition on 2 February 2024. Collins Rice J dismissed the appeal on 14 March 2025, and a subsequent attempt to reopen it was refused by Bennathan J on 8 April 2025.

The appeal was reopened on the sole issue whether extradition would breach Article 3, in light of updated evidence concerning Cypriot prison conditions and assurances from the Cypriot authorities. The central issues were the admissibility and significance of fresh evidence, the reliability of the assurances, and the effect of the appellant’s medical conditions and personal vulnerabilities.

1. Article 3 test. The appellant bore the burden of establishing substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose her to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The assessment was prospective and fact sensitive. The severity of treatment had to be assessed in all the circumstances, including its duration, physical and mental effects and the individual’s characteristics.
2. Holistic assessment. The 2025 CPT report was important and authoritative background evidence concerning overcrowding, sanitation, ventilation and the prison regime, but it was not determinative. The court had to assess the individual risk by considering the general conditions, the specific assurances and the appellant’s medical and personal circumstances together.
3. Assurances and mutual trust. Applying Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2012] 55 EHRR 1 and Zabalotnyi v Hungary [2021] UKSC 14, the assurances were sufficiently specific and detailed, were given by an authority capable of binding the prison administration, and addressed personal space, bedding, sanitation, ventilation, natural light, out-of-cell activity and medical assessment. The appellant had not produced cogent evidence undermining their reliability.
4. The assurances were materially indistinguishable from those accepted in Costappis & others v Cyprus [2025] EWHC 785 (Admin). Extended daily access to the courtyard materially mitigated limited cell space, while the additional guarantees addressed the concerns identified in the CPT material.
5. The appellant’s asthma, nasal condition and post-operative recovery were relevant vulnerabilities, but the medical evidence did not show that her conditions were so severe or complex that they could not be managed in custody. The assurances for medical assessment and appropriate allocation therefore meant that her individual circumstances did not establish an Article 3 risk.
6. The reports of Ms Cariolou did not carry the claimed weight. She was not established as an expert in prison conditions or penology, and opinions outside her expertise, including medical opinions, could not be treated as expert evidence. In any event, the reports largely repeated the CPT material and did not materially engage with the assurances.
7. Applying Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), novelty alone was insufficient for admission of fresh evidence. None of the material, individually or cumulatively, would have led the District Judge to reach a different conclusion or required the appellant’s discharge. The fresh evidence applications were refused, the Article 3 ground failed and the order for extradition was upheld.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The present appeal was reopened on the sole Article 3 ground. The appeal was dismissed, the fresh evidence applications were refused and the extradition order was upheld.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Collins Rice J dismissed the appellant’s original appeal in its entirety on 14 March 2025.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): Bennathan J refused an attempt to reopen the appeal on separate grounds under sections 2 and 12A of the Extradition Act 2003 on 8 April 2025.