Introduction

The case of Bartulis & Ors v. Panevezys Regional Court, Lithuania & Anor ([2019] EWHC 504 (Admin)) was adjudicated in the England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) on March 7, 2019. This case involves renewed applications for permission to appeal against extradition orders issued by District Judge Jabbitt on September 17, 2018. The appellants, Bartulis and others, challenge the extradition primarily on the grounds that detention in Lithuania may breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits inhumane or degrading treatment.

The core issue revolves around whether the conditions in Lithuanian remand and post-conviction prisons pose a real risk of violating Article 3, thus barring extradition under the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003).

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided over by Supperstone J, evaluated the appellants' claims that detention conditions in Lithuanian prisons infringe upon their rights under Article 3 of the ECHR. The district judge had previously denied extradition, a decision upheld by Supperstone J, who refused permission to appeal on most grounds. However, upon reviewing the renewed applications, the court granted permission to appeal specifically regarding the compliance of Lithuanian Correction Houses with Article 3, and stayed other appeal issues pending related case outcomes.

Key decisions included:

• Granting permission to appeal on the ground that Lithuanian Correction Houses do not comply with Article 3.
• Refusing permission to appeal concerning remand prisons and Article 3, as existing assurances were deemed sufficient.
• Allowing the introduction of certain supplementary materials while restricting reliance on unsupported expert opinions.
• Permitting the appellants to amend their grounds of appeal to include Section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 for Mr. Bartulis.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several precedents that have shaped the court's approach to extradition and human rights considerations:

• Jane v Prosecutor's General Office, Lithuania [2018] EWHC 1122 (Admin) and its sequel, Jane (No 2) [2018] EWHC 2691 (Admin): These cases established an international consensus on the inadequate conditions of certain Lithuanian remand prisons, supporting the appellants' claims of potential Article 3 violations.
• Brazuks v Prosecutor General's Office, Republic of Latvia [2014] EWHC 1021 (Admin): Emphasized the necessity for expert opinions to be based on direct knowledge and experience, influencing the court's handling of Dr. Sakalauskas' reports.
• Kalinauskas v Lithuanian Issuing Judicial Authority, CO/3858/2017: Addressed the compliance of Lithuanian Correction Houses with Article 3, prompting the High Court to join related appeals for a unified hearing.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of Article 3 in the context of extradition under the EA 2003. Article 3 prohibits the extradition of individuals to jurisdictions where they face a real risk of inhumane or degrading treatment. The appellants argued that Lithuanian prisons, both remand and post-conviction, fail to meet these standards.

Supperstone J evaluated the credibility of the assurances provided by Lithuanian authorities regarding prison conditions. While acknowledging the existence of systemic issues like the 'caste system' in Lithuanian prisons, the judge found that the district court was justified in accepting assurances that remand prisons would comply with Article 3 standards.

However, the court identified insufficient evidence to counter the assurances concerning Correction Houses, thereby granting permission to appeal on this specific ground. Additionally, procedural aspects such as the late introduction of Section 25 and related evidence by Mr. Bartulis were scrutinized, emphasizing the necessity for appellants to present their complete case upfront to prevent abuse of the appellate process.

Impact

This judgment underscores the High Court's vigilant stance on safeguarding human rights in extradition proceedings. By permitting an appeal on the compliance of Correction Houses with Article 3, the court reinforces the principle that extradition cannot proceed if there is a substantial risk of human rights violations. This decision sets a precedent for future cases involving extradition to jurisdictions with questionable prison conditions, emphasizing the need for comprehensive and timely presentation of all potential grounds for appeal.

Furthermore, the judgment highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that assurances from foreign authorities are critically evaluated and that any systemic issues within extradition processes are addressed to uphold the integrity of human rights protections.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 3 prohibits torture and inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. In the context of extradition, this means that a person should not be extradited to a country where they risk being subjected to such treatment.

Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003)

The EA 2003 governs the process of extradition between jurisdictions in the UK. Sections 21 and 21A specifically relate to human rights considerations, allowing extradition to be barred if there are substantial grounds to believe that it would result in a breach of the ECHR.

Remand Prison

A remand prison is where individuals are held while awaiting trial or sentencing. Conditions in these facilities are scrutinized under Article 3 to ensure they meet human rights standards.

Correction Houses

Correction Houses refer to Lithuanian post-conviction prisons where individuals serve their sentences. The compliance of these facilities with Article 3 was a central issue in this case.

Section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003

Section 25 allows for extradition proceedings to be stayed or a defendant to be discharged if their physical or mental condition is such that extradition would be unjust or oppressive.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Bartulis & Ors v. Panevezys Regional Court marks a significant development in extradition law, particularly concerning human rights protections under Article 3 of the ECHR. By granting permission to appeal on the grounds that Lithuanian Correction Houses may not comply with required human rights standards, the court reaffirms the imperative that extradition processes must rigorously assess and mitigate risks of inhumane treatment.

This judgment emphasizes the judiciary's commitment to upholding international human rights obligations within extradition frameworks, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly subjected to environments where their fundamental rights could be compromised. Future extradition cases will undoubtedly reference this precedent, shaping the evaluation of prison conditions and the adequacy of assurances provided by foreign jurisdictions.