A v Deputy General Public Prosecutor of the Lyon Court of Appeal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Jay,Lord Justice Stuart-Smith |
| Judgment Date | 08 April 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 841 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: CO/3078/2019; CO/756/2020 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2022] EWHC 841 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith
Mr Justice Jay
Case Nos: CO/3078/2019; CO/756/2020
Hugo Keith QC and Rachel Barnes (instructed by Sternberg Reed) for the Appellant Mr A
Hugo Keith QC and John Crawford (instructed by MW Solicitors) for the Appellant Mr Esmaili
Helen Malcolm QC and Richard Evans (instructed by CPS) for the Respondents
Hearing date: 15 March 2022
Remote hand-down: This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 15 March 2022 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email and by release to BAILII and the National Archives.
Approved Judgment
Introduction
On 22 nd September 2021 this Court (Stuart-Smith LJ and Jay J) handed down its judgment in these two extradition appeals ( [2021] EWHC 2543 (Admin)). Having decided that Aranyosi Stage 1 had been satisfied in various specific respects, supplementary information was sought from the French judicial authorities in line with the procedure laid down in Article 15(2) of the Framework Decision.
In the light of the responses that have been provided, the issue for determination in this second judgment is whether, in relation to each Appellant, there is a real risk that he would suffer inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.
It is unnecessary to summarise the legal principles, evidence and submissions that have been covered in our first judgment. I will, however, be returning to the medical evidence in the case of Mr A because some of the detail is important.
The Supplementary Information
What the Respondents describe as a “preliminary response” to the Court's questions was provided by letter dated 5 th November 2021, being the deadline specified in our Order dated 23 rd September. The CPS recognised that this response was inadequate and sought a further 14 days for compliance, expiring on 19 th November. This first response took issue, albeit entirely courteously, with some of our reasons for concluding that Aranyosi Stage 1 was fulfilled. In terms of a substantive response, the point was made that under Law No. 2021–403 of 8 th April 2021, a detainee who claims to be held in conditions which are unfit may apply to a judge for redress. The French court has considerable power within an expedited timescale to ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken or, if necessary, for the prisoner to be released. The point was also made that under French legal and administrative arrangements the prison service guarantees the same level of healthcare as is applicable to the general population; and, if necessary, that a detainee be transferred to a local hospital for treatment. The response noted that the quality of healthcare provision was not the subject of criticism in JMB and others v France (Application No. 9671/15).
On 19 th November 2021 the Respondent made a second application for a further 14 days in which to comply with this Court's direction. The application was granted and the Respondent's supplementary response, dated 19 th November, was served on 2 nd December.
The response in relation to the Appellant Mr A provides a certain amount of additional information concerning Villefranche-sur-Saône detention centre and Lyon-Corbas prison.
In relation to Villefranche-sur-Saône detention centre, this additional information may be summarised as follows:
(1) as at 18 th November 2021, there were 656 persons incarcerated (as opposed, for example, to serving in the community) in the context of a theoretical capacity of 564 cells and 639 spaces.
(2) the cells (in three buildings, A, B and J) have a surface area of 9m 2. The in-cell “bathroom” area, comprising a toilet, sink and a mirror) can be estimated as being 1m 2. The showers are not in the cells and each wing includes an area with several showers accessible to detainees.
(3) as at 18 th November 2021, no cells were occupied by three inmates. It follows that all inmates had either 4m 2 or 8m 2 of personal space.
(4) the healthcare institutions linked to the Villefranche-sur-Saône detention centre are the Villefranche-sur-Saône hospital centre and the Saint-Cyr-au Mont d'Or hospital centre for psychiatric care.
In relation to Lyon-Corbas, this additional information may be summarised as follows:
(1) as at 18 th November 2021, there were 1,301 incarcerated persons in the context of 690 cell spaces.
(2) the cells (in three buildings, MAH1, MAH2 and MAH3) vary as between single and double. The area of single cells is 10.5m 2; the area of double cells is 13.5m 2. The surface area of cells for disabled inmates is 21m 2. All cells have a flat screen TV, a small fridge and a toilet area (estimated to be 1.6m 2) with a sink, a toilet and a shower. It follows that the area of the single cells, without toilet area, is 8.9m 2, providing 4.45m 2 per detainee when shared by two inmates (none of these cells were occupied by three). The area of double cells, without the toilet area, is 11.9m 2, therefore amounting to 5.95m 2 per person when occupied by two inmates and 3.96m 2 when occupied by three. Within these three buildings, 33 double cells are currently shared by three inmates. Overall, each inmate benefits from personal space of over 3m 2 and less than 100 inmates have less than 4m 2 (and then, only by a small margin).
(3) the healthcare institutions linked to Lyon-Corbas prison are the Lyon state hospitals for physical (described as “somatic”) care and the Vinatier hospital centre for psychiatric care.
(4) the Lyon-Corbas prison centre benefits from an interregional secure hospital unit, being a healthcare centre linked to this establishment but managed by the local health authorities.
Each institution has its own healthcare unit, open from Monday to Friday. Regarding access to treatment, depending on the individual situation and evolution of each unit there is either a pharmacist on site or treatment is provided at the assigned hospital. Such treatments therefore come from the pharmacy of the hospital centre and are administered by the paramedical staff following a doctor's prescription.
In relation to the Appellant Mr Esmaili, the additional information regarding Rennes-Vezin prison centre may be summarised as follows:
(1) as at 18 th November 2021 there were 997 persons incarcerated in the context of a theoretical capacity of 712 spaces.
(2) Mr Esmaili would be incarcerated either in Detention Centre 1 or Detention Centre 2.
(3) as for Detention Centre 1, the single cells have an area of 10.5m 2, minus the toilet area which has a surface area of 1.6m 2, yielding an available surface area of 8.9m 2. As for double cells, the surface area is 14m 2 and 12.4m 2 without the toilet area.
(4) as at 18 th November 2021:
(a) 35 single cells were occupied by one person, which equates to 8.9m 2 per person.
(b) 48 single cells were occupied by two people, equating to 4.5m 2 per person.
(c) 8 single cells were occupied by three people, which equates to 2.96m 2 per person.
(d) 23 double cells were occupied by two people, which equates to 6.2m 2 person.
(e) 32 double cells were occupied by three people, which equates to 4.13m 2 per person.
(f) 1 double cell was occupied by one person, equating to 12.4m 2.
(5) as for Detention Centre 2, the single cells have an area of 9.5m 2, minus the toilet area which has an area of 1.6m 2, yielding an available area of 7.9m 2. The double cells have a surface area of 13.6m 2 and so 12m 2 without the toilet area.
(6) as at 18th November 2021, in this building:
(a) 36 single cells were occupied by one person, which equates to 7.9m 2 per person.
(b) 45 single cells were occupied by two people, which equates to 3.95m 2 per person.
(c) 1 single cell was occupied by three people, which equates to 2.63m 2 per person.
(d) 23 double cells were occupied by two people, which equates to 6.2m 2 per person.
(e) 32 double cells were occupied by three people, which equates to 4.13m 2 per person,
(f) 1 double cell was occupied by one person, which equates to 12.4m 2.
The French judicial authority opined that “it seems unlikely” that if Mr Esmaili were incarcerated in Rennes-Vezin his personal space would be less than 3m 2. More exactly, 27 prisoners out of 570 had less than 3m 2 of personal space. I have not used the figure of 997 prisoners because on my arithmetic the sum of §10(4) and (6) above is 570. If a simple mathematical approach were appropriate, this amounts to a probability of just under 5%.
An unfortunate complication in Mr Esmaili's case is that the French judicial authority now says that it is very unlikely that he would be held at that institution. Although M. Tricaud, the Appellant's expert, had focused on Rennes-Vezin, and the Court is aware that Rennes is nowhere near Rouen, it is perhaps surprising that his misconception has sought to be corrected only very late in the day. Be that as it may, the parties are agreed that for present purposes the Court should examine the evidence relevant to this institution and make appropriate findings upon it, because it is likely to be representative.
Deficiencies in the Supplementary Information Provided
Mr Hugo Keith QC submitted that the French judicial authorities have failed to provide the detailed information which the Court required in Annex A of its September 2021 judgment, in a number of important respects.
First, there is no specific information about whether the healthcare units in the two establishments germane to Mr A's case can provide proper treatment for the range of conditions from which Mr A suffers....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony Rae v United States of America
... [2021] EWHC 2543 (Admin)) and decided, after consideration of the response, that there was no real risk of a breach of Article 3 ( [2022] EWHC 841 (Admin)). She pointed out that the latter conclusion was reached on the basis that the proportion of cells with less than 3 sq. m. of space wa......
-
Mr A v Deputy General Public Prosecutor of the Lyon Court of Appeal
...against the order of the District Judge for reasons that were set out successively in two judgments: [2021] EWHC 2543 (Admin) and [2022] EWHC 841 (Admin). The first of these two judgments was dated 20 September 2021; the second was dated 8 April 2022. The judgments dealt with the appeal o......