The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Lithuania to face prosecution for two alleged theft-type offences after rejecting his objection based on prison conditions there.
In a judgment delivered on 8 February 2021, Mr Justice Paul Burns dismissed the respondent’s sole objection under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. He found that the evidence did not establish a real risk that surrender would expose the respondent to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The European arrest warrant was issued on 10 September 2019. The court endorsed it on 18 August 2020, and the respondent was arrested and brought before the High Court on 8 September 2020. The Minister for Justice and Equality sought surrender to Lithuania so the respondent could be prosecuted. The court said the alleged offences carried maximum prison terms of six years and three years, and corresponded to theft under Irish law.
The respondent’s solicitor filed an affidavit describing the respondent’s past detention in Lithuania. The respondent alleged he contracted HIV in Alytus prison in the early 2000s, that his medication and hygiene needs were not adequately met, and that he had experienced violence. He also said that during detention there in 2019 he shared an approximately 40-square-metre cell with up to 15 other inmates.
The court considered a 2019 report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, based on a 2018 visit. It criticised conditions at Alytus prison, including personal space, inter-prisoner violence and the use of excessive force. The Lithuanian Government’s response described prison construction and refurbishment, staff training and measures to address violence.
The High Court sought further information from Lithuania about the conditions the respondent might face. The issuing authority said it could not identify in advance the prison where he would be held. It supplied information about standards for accommodation, sanitation, food and healthcare, and the system for addressing violence. After the court sought clarification, the authority confirmed that the respondent would receive at least three square metres of personal space if detained.
Justice Burns said he accepted the issuing state’s information, which was more up to date, relying on the mutual trust between member states. He said his conclusion was based on the wider information about likely detention conditions as well as the promised minimum personal space. Having dismissed the objection, the court ordered surrender under section 16(1) of the Act.