Erdinc Uckac v The Government of the Republic of Türkiye
[2024] EWHC 3055 (Admin)
The Government of the Republic of Türkiye v Chan Demir
17 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2351 (Admin)
High Court
Three people fought extradition to Turkey. Turkey promised good prison conditions (Yalvac assurance), but broke that promise before. One person wasn't guilty of the crime in UK law. Another's family life would be ruined. The third person didn't prove their case. The court wants better assurances from Turkey before sending anyone there.
Key Facts
- •Three appeals against extradition to Turkey were heard.
- •The main issue was whether extradition would breach Article 3 ECHR (inhuman or degrading treatment) due to prison conditions.
- •Turkey provided a "Yalvac assurance" promising specific prison conditions.
- •The appeals involved conviction warrants (Demir, Sahin) and an accusation warrant (Uckac).
- •Evidence on Turkish prison conditions included reports from Professor Morgan and Dr. Karakas, and UNCAT concluding observations.
- •Evidence showed breaches of the Yalvac assurance in previous cases.
- •Fresh evidence was admitted, including UNCAT observations and a judgment in a similar case (McCarthy).
Legal Principles
Article 3 ECHR prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
European Convention on Human Rights
Dual criminality: Extradition is barred if the conduct is not criminal under UK law.
Extradition Act 2003, sections 78(4)(b), 138
Proportionality under Article 8 ECHR: Extradition must be proportionate to the public interest.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
Assessment of assurances: Courts assess whether assurances mitigate risks, considering their practical and legal effect.
Othman v United Kingdom, Giese v Government of the United States of America, Government of India v Dhir
Fresh evidence: Strict limits on admitting fresh evidence on appeal, but inherent jurisdiction to admit if just.
Extradition Act 2003, section 104(4); Fenyvesi; FK v Germany
Outcomes
Demir's extradition refused.
Dual criminality not established; real risk of Article 3 ECHR breach due to unreliable Yalvac assurance.
Sahin's extradition refused.
Interference with Article 8 ECHR rights disproportionate to public interest in extradition.
Uckac's appeal dismissed.
No arguable grounds of appeal; no evidence of extraneous considerations or disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights.
Appeal stayed pending further assurances from Turkey.
Culpable failure to coordinate transfer to Yalvac prison; need for assurances to ensure compliance and reporting.
Similar Cases
Andrew Stewart Henderson Campbell v Court of Thrace (Greece)
[2023] EWHC 267 (Admin)
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)
Mantas Barkauskas v Prosecutors General of the Republic of Lithuania
[2024] EWHC 2815 (Admin)
Evaldas Urbonas v The Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania
[2024] EWHC 33 (Admin)