The High Court ordered Simeon Cosmo Langford’s surrender to the United Kingdom on four offences, while refusing surrender on a fifth alleged offence of assault because it did not meet the statutory gravity threshold.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2016, Ms Justice Donnelly considered a European arrest warrant seeking Langford to serve the remainder of a sentence for grievous bodily harm with intent and to face prosecution on four other offences. The warrant covered three incidents. The court found the statutory requirements for surrender were met on the sentence and on three of the prosecution offences: alleged grievous bodily harm with intent and theft arising from one incident, and attempted murder arising from another. It refused surrender for a separate alleged assault, which carried a maximum sentence of six months in the requesting state.
Langford argued that surrender would breach the prohibition on torture or inhuman or degrading treatment because of a real risk of such treatment in UK prisons. He alleged racist abuse and violence, inadequate medical care for mental health issues, interference with food and property, and obstacles to accessing courts and lawyers. He said he had suffered at least ten serious attacks, though his affidavit gave details of two incidents at Bristol Prison.
The court reviewed prison records disclosed following a subject access request, including an OASys assessment and a prisoner profile, as well as inspection reports on Bristol and Pentonville prisons. The judge said the material did not establish a real risk to Langford. She noted the later reported improvements at Bristol and that there was no evidence he was at risk of being sent to Pentonville, where he had not been held. The court also considered his conduct and the records’ accounts of confrontations, aggression and violence in custody.
Langford’s further allegations in a same-day affidavit—including that his head had been held in water and that CCTV evidence of assaults had not been provided—were rejected as uncorroborated and a last-minute attempt to stop or delay surrender. The court also rejected his claims that photographs had been altered to conceal injuries and that his access to court or presumption of innocence had been compromised.
The judge concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe Langford faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to the UK. She found no need for further inquiry or to await the outstanding prison records. With no remaining ground prohibiting surrender on the four qualifying offences, the court ordered his surrender to an authorised recipient in the UK.