Key Facts
- •Eduard Otto Goldstein (Appellant, aged 25) was ordered extradited to Italy for 14 alleged cocaine supply offences and robbery-conspiracy with a firearm (2021).
- •Appeal concerns Article 3 (and initially Article 8) ECHR risks in Italian prisons, specifically Sicily.
- •Appellant sought adjournment for translation of materials, initially refused by Westminster Magistrates’ Court (WMC).
- •131 pages of translated articles submitted, considered 'de bene esse' by the Judge.
- •A report by Italian lawyer Benito Capellupo (Feb 2024) and 5 translated documents (May 2024) were submitted.
- •Appellant's skeleton argument was submitted late, and Article 8 was abandoned.
- •Appellant relied on Antigone Observatory reports on overcrowding in Italian prisons.
- •The key argument focused on prison overcrowding, drawing on Antigone Observatory data.
- •The court considered previous case law, specifically *Visha v Italy* [2019] EWHC 400 (Admin) and *Elashmawy v Italy* [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin).
Legal Principles
Article 3 ECHR – prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
European Convention on Human Rights
Standard of proof for Article 3 challenges in extradition cases requires 'objective, reliable specific and properly updated' material demonstrating specific concern.
*Elashmawy v Italy* [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin) §104
Antigone Observatory reports on overcrowding must be treated cautiously, considering methodology and lack of detail on affected individuals and duration.
*Visha v Italy* [2019] EWHC 400 (Admin) §§21-22, 39
In extradition cases, prison conditions assurances are not required for Italy unless cogent evidence necessitates a review of the general position or shows inapplicability to the specific circumstances.
*Elashmawy v Italy* [2015] EWHC 28 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
The new material presented did not meet the required standard for a reasonably arguable Article 3 appeal. The evidence on overcrowding, even from Antigone, was not sufficiently cogent to demonstrate a specific risk in the Appellant's case.
Permission to adduce the putative fresh evidence refused.
The evidence was deemed incapable of being decisive.