The High Court has refused an order to surrender Edward Prenderville to Croatia for prosecution, finding that the prison conditions described for his likely pre-trial detention created a real risk of treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Justice David Keane ruled that surrender was prohibited under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The application, brought by the Minister for Justice, concerned a European arrest warrant seeking Mr Prenderville’s surrender over an allegation of swindling. The court made no finding on that allegation.
The warrant alleged that Mr Prenderville agreed to use accommodation at Apartment Aqua Tuhelj in Tuheljske Toplice, Croatia, from 9 to 19 September 2020 for HRK 4,500, stated as €597.25. It alleged he left on 18 September without paying, causing a loss of €597.24 to the apartment’s owner. The judgment found the warrant met the statutory minimum gravity and offence-category requirements.
The objection concerned the conditions in which Mr Prenderville would be held if surrendered. The court accepted a 2023 report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture as reliable evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies in Croatian detention conditions, including serious overcrowding at Zagreb Prison.
In response to the High Court’s request for further information, the Croatian issuing authority said Mr Prenderville would be admitted to Zagreb Prison for pre-trial detention. It described a usual six-person cell allocation of about 3.255 square metres per person, but said he could occasionally be placed in a seven-person cell for short periods, reducing his space to about 2.79 square metres. The authority did not explain what “occasionally” or “short periods” meant in this case.
The authority also described at least two hours outdoors each day, with exercise facilities, and possible leisure activities. The judge concluded that these assurances did not establish enough out-of-cell time or activities to compensate for a possible allocation below three square metres. The court assumed, without deciding, that the reductions might be short, occasional and minor and that the prison was appropriate; it still found the necessary compensating factors had not been established.
The court considered the Croatian government’s stated plans to address overcrowding but assessed conditions as they stood at the time of the hearing. It therefore refused the surrender order under section 16(2), holding that surrender would be incompatible with the State’s Convention obligations. The judgment did not determine the prosecution in Croatia.