GRT v Ministry of Justice, Republic of Albania

On an extradition appeal, a high threshold applies to both article 3 of the ECHR and section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003. The court must assess the particular facts, including the person’s mental health, the treatment required and the detention conditions likely to apply. A general prison-condition report will not establish an article 3 bar unless it demonstrates a very strong case or something approaching an international consensus indicating a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Further information from the requesting state is required only where a specific and precise assessment identifies substantial grounds for believing that the individual will face that risk, or where the complexity of the health condition makes the presumption of adequate treatment insufficient. Updated medical evidence must show that the district judge would have reached a different conclusion before an appeal can succeed.

The appellant challenged the district judge’s decision to send his case to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State’s subsequent extradition order to Albania. He relied on article 3 of the ECHR and section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003, asserting a real risk arising from prison conditions at Fier and Pequin prisons. He also relied on section 91, contending that his mental condition made extradition unjust or oppressive.

Permission to appeal was granted on those limited grounds. The appellant additionally sought to rely on updated prison medical records. The central issues were whether the district judge had erred on the original evidence, and whether the new material would have required a different decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court could allow the appeal only if the district judge ought to have decided a question differently and that different conclusion would have required discharge. The same approach applied to the fresh evidence, which had to be capable of producing a different decision.
2. For article 3 purposes, the assessment had to consider the appellant’s mental health and, specifically and precisely, whether the envisaged detention conditions exposed him to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The presumption that an ECHR signatory would afford adequate protection remained applicable. The CPT material disclosed staffing concerns but did not establish the very strong case or something approaching an international consensus required to rebut that presumption.
3. The evidence did not establish that the appellant was likely to be placed in a special care sector. His condition had been managed for years in the general prison estate with medication. There was no evidence of complex health needs requiring treatment in a secure hospital setting or otherwise necessitating further information or a prison assurance.
4. Under section 91, the burden rested on the appellant and the threshold was high. The district judge was entitled to reject the appellant’s account, give little weight to the unsigned proof, and assess the medical evidence in light of inconsistencies, the absence of an earlier PTSD diagnosis and the expert’s limited assessment. Even accepting the diagnosis in the expert report, the recommended CBT could not be delivered in a custodial setting in either country, and there was no sufficient basis to conclude that comparable medication and general healthcare would not be available in Albania.
5. The updated records disclosed mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, not a PTSD diagnosis. They showed continued treatment in a general custodial setting, including medication, ACCT monitoring and unclear counselling. They did not demonstrate that the district judge would have reached a different conclusion. The court made no finding on how detention in the United Kingdom would be credited against the Albanian sentence, and that issue did not affect the appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed. The district judge’s decision and the Secretary of State’s extradition order were left undisturbed.