Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania) v Michailov [2024] EWHC 3001 (Admin) (18 October 2024)

Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania) v Michailov [2024] EWHC 3001 (Admin) (18 October 2024)

The district judge's refusal to seek further information or assurances regarding the respondent's health needs in Lithuanian detention, and the finding that no assurance could rectify the risk of Article 3 ill-treatment, was irrational. The judge failed to properly apply the Aranyosi procedure and to consider whether specific assurances could address the respondent's vulnerabilities. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal approach.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3001 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania); Respondent: Michailov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Rolled Up Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; matter remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
ECHR Article 3, Prison Conditions, Mutual Recognition, Assurances in Extradition, Mental and Physical Health in Extradition, Proportionality Under Article 8, Case Management Discretion
Extradition Human Rights Law Criminal Law ECHR Article 3 Prison Conditions Mutual Recognition Assurances in Extradition Mental and Physical Health in Extradition +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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania)

Appellant/applicant

Michailov

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Rolled Up Application for Permission to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to Lithuania would breach Article 3 ECHR due to risk of inhuman or degrading treatment
  2. 2 Whether the district judge erred in not seeking further information or assurances regarding the respondent's health needs in Lithuanian detention
  3. 3 Whether the district judge's conclusion that no assurance could rectify the risk was irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge's refusal to seek further information or assurances regarding the respondent's health needs in Lithuanian detention, and the finding that no assurance could rectify the risk of Article 3 ill-treatment, was irrational. The judge failed to properly apply the Aranyosi procedure and to consider whether specific assurances could address the respondent's vulnerabilities. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal approach.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; matter remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The matter is remitted to the lower court for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal approach.