Shumba & Ors v Public Prosecutor In Nanterre County Court, France & Ors

Shumba & Ors v Public Prosecutor In Nanterre County Court, France & Ors

The appeals on section 14 and Article 8 grounds are dismissed as the District Judges made no error in finding extradition not oppressive by passage of time and not disproportionate under Article 8. On Article 3, there is sufficient evidence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in French prisons to require further specific information from the French authorities before a final determination on extradition can be made.

Parties
First Appellant: Emanuel Shumba; Second Appellant: Robin Bechian; Third Appellant: Ciprian Henta; First Respondent: Public Prosecutor in Nanterre County Court, France; Second Respondent: Public Prosecutor of Bobigny County Court, France; Third Respondent: First Instance Court of Bobigny, France
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From District Judge Orders
Outcome
Appeals on section 14 and Article 8 dismissed; Article 3 ground adjourned for further information
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Section 14 Extradition Act 2003, Prison Conditions, Passage of Time, Family Life, Mutual Recognition
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Extradition Law European Arrest Warrant Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Section 14 Extradition Act 2003 Prison Conditions +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emanuel Shumba

First Appellant

Robin Bechian

Second Appellant

Ciprian Henta

Third Appellant

Public Prosecutor in Nanterre County Court, France

First Respondent

Public Prosecutor of Bobigny County Court, France

Second Respondent

First Instance Court of Bobigny, France

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From District Judge Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to France would breach Article 3 ECHR due to prison conditions
  2. 2 Whether extradition is barred by passage of time under section 14 Extradition Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals on section 14 and Article 8 grounds are dismissed as the District Judges made no error in finding extradition not oppressive by passage of time and not disproportionate under Article 8. On Article 3, there is sufficient evidence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in French prisons to require further specific information from the French authorities before a final determination on extradition can be made.

Court Disposition

Appeals on section 14 and Article 8 dismissed; Article 3 ground adjourned for further information

Orders

  • Appeals of First and Second Appellants dismissed on section 14 and Article 8 grounds
  • Request to French authorities for specific information on prison conditions for all three Appellants before final determination on Article 3 ground