Ayman Shahoud v Swedish Judicial Authority

Ayman Shahoud v Swedish Judicial Authority

The appellant failed to provide clear, cogent, and compelling evidence that extradition to Sweden would create a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The fresh evidence regarding prison conditions, including double occupancy and isolation, did not meet the threshold required to rebut the presumption of compliance by Sweden. The appeal was dismissed and the application to admit fresh evidence refused.

Parties
Appellant: Ayman Shahoud; Respondent: Swedish Judicial Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Extradition Order / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extradition, Article 3 ECHR, Prison Conditions, Fresh Evidence, Solitary Confinement, Double Occupancy, Overcrowding
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Extradition Law Extradition Article 3 ECHR Prison Conditions Fresh Evidence Solitary Confinement +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ayman Shahoud

Appellant

Swedish Judicial Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Extradition Order / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to Sweden would breach Article 3 ECHR due to prison conditions
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence demonstrates a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment
  3. 3 Whether double occupancy and isolation in Swedish prisons amount to Article 3 violations

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide clear, cogent, and compelling evidence that extradition to Sweden would create a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The fresh evidence regarding prison conditions, including double occupancy and isolation, did not meet the threshold required to rebut the presumption of compliance by Sweden. The appeal was dismissed and the application to admit fresh evidence refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to rely on fresh evidence refused
  • Extradition order upheld