The High Court has sought further information from UK authorities about the conditions in which an anonymised respondent would be held at Maghaberry Prison before deciding whether to surrender him under two European Arrest Warrants.
In a judgment dated 2 November 2017, Ms Justice Donnelly said reports on Maghaberry did not sufficiently address concerns about the respondent’s specific vulnerabilities, including threats to his life and health issues following a stroke. The court directed that further information be obtained under section 20(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. It did not make a final decision on surrender.
The warrants seek the respondent’s surrender to Northern Ireland for prosecution over alleged murder and arson in one case and alleged rape in the other. The respondent argued that the warrants did not adequately describe his alleged involvement, that a lengthy delay in the second case threatened his fair-trial rights, and that detention at Maghaberry could expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment. He also objected on the basis of the UK’s planned withdrawal from the European Union.
The judge rejected the objections concerning the level of detail in the warrants. Reading each warrant as a whole, she found there was sufficient information about the alleged offences and the circumstantial links relied on by the requesting authorities. She stressed that the surrender court was not deciding whether the evidence would prove the allegations at trial.
The court also rejected the delay objection. Although it found there had been a significant lapse of time relating to the second warrant, it said delay alone did not prohibit surrender. The respondent had not shown specific prejudice or grounds to conclude that he would face a flagrant denial of justice in the UK. The court did not finalise its decision on the Brexit objection at this stage.
On prison conditions, the court considered reports from the UK national preventive mechanism, including a 2017 review that found Maghaberry calmer than in 2015 and generally recorded low levels of violence and disorder. But the judge said the review did not address prisoners with vulnerabilities similar to the respondent’s. It identified continuing concerns about men held for prolonged periods in segregation and about provision for complex health needs, while not specifying measures Maghaberry would take to reduce the risk in this respondent’s case.
The judgment therefore leaves the surrender question unresolved pending the UK authorities’ response. The court’s request for information was not a finding that the respondent would necessarily suffer prohibited treatment, nor an order refusing surrender.