Andrew Stewart Henderson Campbell v Court of Thrace (Greece)
[2023] EWHC 267 (Admin)
Eduard Otto Goldstein v The Court of Caltanissetta Italy
13 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1459 (Admin)
High Court
A man was ordered to be sent to Italy to face trial. He argued that Italian prisons are dangerous. The judge looked at reports about prison conditions but said the evidence wasn't strong enough to stop the extradition. The man lost his appeal.
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.
Similar Cases
Viorel Ovidiu Sandulescu v Ramnicu Valcea Court (Romania)
[2024] EWHC 1026 (Admin)
Zdravko Tihomiro Stefanov v District Attorney of the Court of Venice, Italy
[2023] EWHC 463 (Admin)
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)
Igor Gisca v Prosecutor General of Trieste, Italy
[2023] EWHC 241 (Admin)