Rahim Abdi Omar v Greek Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 445 (Admin)
Andrew Stewart Henderson Campbell v Court of Thrace (Greece)
10 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 267 (Admin)
High Court
A man is wanted in Greece for a crime. He says going back would be cruel (Article 3) and hurt his family (Article 8). A judge is checking if Greek prisons are really as bad as he says before deciding. The judge decided it's not likely to hurt his family too much.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, Andrew Stewart Henderson Campbell, is sought by the Court of Thrace, Greece, pursuant to a European arrest warrant for money laundering.
- •The warrant seeks the appellant’s surrender to serve a 6-year sentence imposed after a trial in absentia.
- •The appellant was arrested on 26 April 2022.
- •The appellant resisted extradition on the basis that it would be incompatible with his rights under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
- •The challenge under Article 3 was based on prison conditions in Greece, specifically at Komotini Detention Facility.
- •The challenge under Article 8 concerned the impact of extradition on his family and private life, particularly his relationship with his son.
- •The District Judge ordered extradition, granting permission to appeal on Article 3 and refusing it on Article 8. The Article 8 ground was later renewed.
Legal Principles
In extradition cases involving an ECHR contracting state, there's a strong presumption that the state will fulfill its obligations under the ECHR, unless there's clear, cogent, and compelling evidence to the contrary.
Elashmawy v Italy [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin), [49] and [50]; Krolik v Poland [2012] EWHC 2357 (Admin), [2013] 1 WLR 490, [4]
Regarding Article 3 ECHR challenges based on prison conditions, courts must rely on objective, reliable, specific, and properly updated information.
Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU Aranyosi EU:C:2016:198, [2016] QB 921, [89]
Assurances given by authorities must be assessed according to the guidance in Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1, [188].
Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1, at [188]
In Article 8 ECHR cases concerning extradition, courts balance the public interest in extradition against the impact on the appellant's private and family life.
Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9, [2010] 2 AC 487; HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25, [2013] 1 AC 338; Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), [2016] 1 WLR 551
Outcomes
Appeal on Article 3 adjourned pending further information from Greek authorities regarding compliance with assurances given in Owda’s case.
New evidence raised concerns about the accuracy of assurances regarding personal space in Greek prisons. The court needs clarification before deciding on the Article 3 challenge.
Permission to appeal on Article 8 refused.
The judge's balancing of factors was sound. The seriousness of the offence, the appellant's fugitive status, and the limited impact on his son outweighed the arguments against extradition.
Similar Cases
Viorel Ovidiu Sandulescu v Ramnicu Valcea Court (Romania)
[2024] EWHC 1026 (Admin)
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)
Eduard Otto Goldstein v The Court of Caltanissetta Italy
[2024] EWHC 1459 (Admin)
Sebastian Klos v Regional Court in Warsaw (Poland)
[2023] EWHC 2859 (Admin)