Court Dismisses Appeal in Vasile Mihaila Case, Upholding Extradition to Romania

Citation: [2024] EWHC 43 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Vasile Mihaila v Judecatoria Piatra Neamt (Romania), the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, addressed an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 concerning the extradition of an individual to Romania. The case examined the application of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically regarding the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in foreign prisons, and focused on the treatment of individuals convicted of sexual offenses against children.

Key Facts

Vasile Mihaila appealed against his ordered extradition to Romania for sexually abusing two minors. The main ground for the appeal was the risk posed by other prisoners due to the nature of his offenses. Mr. Swain, on the appellant’s behalf, argued that Mihaila would face a real risk of Article 3 ECHR breach if extradited because Romania would be unable to provide adequate protection in prison. The appeal highlighted reports from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) and relied on assurances from Romania regarding the appellant’s protection.

The court scrutinized several legal principles throughout the judgment:

  1. Article 3 ECHR: This article forbids torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The burden of proof falls on the individual claiming the risk of such treatment to demonstrate “strong grounds” or a “real risk” of facing it upon extradition.

  2. Risk from Non-State Actors: The court reaffirmed the principle that Article 3 risk might arise from non-state actors, such as other prisoners. However, harm inflicted by them will not constitute Article 3 ill-treatment unless there is a failure by the state to provide “reasonable protection” against it, as explained in the case of Bagdanavicius v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 668.

  3. Aranyosi and Căldăraru Criteria: Drawing from the case law of Aranyosi [2016] QB 921, the court set out a three-stage process for assessing the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, requiring specific and updated evidence of detention conditions, a substantial ground to believe that the individual will be exposed to the identified risk, and further information or assurances if necessary to assess the situation.

  4. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence: The court applied the principles established in Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] 4 All ER 324 and Zabolotnyi v Mateszalka District Court, Hungary [2021] 1 WLR 2569, considering the decisiveness of fresh evidence that arose post-judgment.

Outcomes

The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal. It was determined that neither the 2019 nor the 2022 CPT Reports provided decisive evidence of systemic or generalised risk specific to sex offenders in the Romanian prison system. The 2022 CPT Report showed improvement in inter-prisoner violence levels, and the Romanian assurances were deemed solemn promises addressing conditions of detention. In the absence of evidence revealing systemic deficiencies as they relate to child sex offenders, the court found no real risk of Article 3 violation.

Conclusion

The judgment in Vasile Mihaila v Judecatoria Piatra Neamt reaffirms the stringent evidential thresholds required to demonstrate a potential breach of Article 3 ECHR in extradition proceedings. The decision illustrates the court’s reliance on up-to-date and specific evidence to assess risk, along with taking into account the receiving state’s assurances and its ability to provide a reasonable level of protection against the said risk. The case underscores the principle that mere risk of harm from non-state actors is not enough unless accompanied by evidence of the state’s inability to provide adequate protection, thus setting a high bar for defeating extradition on Article 3 grounds.