The High Court has sought further information from the UK issuing judicial authority before deciding whether R.O. can be surrendered to the United Kingdom under a European Arrest Warrant. The court adjourned the proceedings; it did not decide the surrender question in this judgment.
In a preliminary judgment in November 2017, the court found that reports on conditions at Maghaberry Prison, considered alongside R.O.’s particular vulnerabilities, raised a real risk that he would face inhuman or degrading treatment if detained there. It then requested information about the conditions in which he might be held and any arrangements for his needs.
The response came from Northern Ireland Prison Service head Ronnie Armour, through a letter from the Crown Solicitor in Belfast, rather than from the issuing judicial authority. NIPS described its procedures for assessing and supporting vulnerable prisoners, responding to threats, separating prisoners where needed and providing healthcare. It also cited improvements reported at Maghaberry.
The court said the original request had not made clear that the response should come from the issuing judicial authority. It also criticised the NIPS letter for challenging the court’s earlier assessment. The judge said the court had sought relevant information, not an argument about its findings.
At the renewed hearing, R.O.’s counsel argued that the response was vague and did not address his individual circumstances. These included reported death threats, the fact that he was also sought for an alleged rape offence, medical frailties and a history of self-harm in custody. Counsel for the Minister argued that NIPS had explained how individual needs would be assessed if R.O. were surrendered, and that a specific plan could not be made in advance.
The judge reviewed inspection reports published in November 2016 and August 2017. The latter recorded continuing serious concerns about care for vulnerable prisoners, including those who self-harm, and shortcomings in the prison’s safer-custody arrangements. The judgment also referred to a forensic psychiatrist’s report concerning a suspected methadone overdose and to prison records indicating previous incidents of deliberate self-harm. R.O. denied that the overdose was a suicide attempt.
The court directed that the issuing judicial authority be asked for supplementary information, as specific as possible, about the conditions in which R.O. is expected to be detained at Maghaberry. The requested information should address his reported death threats, alleged offence, history of self-harm, residual weaknesses following a stroke, and the inspection report’s concerns about vulnerable prisoners.
The judgment grants time for that information to be provided. It does not determine whether the detention conditions will comply with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, nor does it make a final decision on surrender.