Shumba & Ors v Public Prosecutor In Nanterre County Court, France & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 16, 2018, [2018] EWHC 3130 (Admin)

Resolution Date:November 16, 2018
Issuing Organization:Administrative Court
Actores:Shumba & Ors v Public Prosecutor In Nanterre County Court, France & Ors

Case No: CO/3071/2017, CO/2754/2017& CO/4461/2017

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 3130 (Admin)




Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 16/11/2018

Before :



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms Alison Macdonald QC and Ms Saoirse Townshend (instructed by BSB Solicitors Ltd) for the First Appellant

Ms Alison Macdonald QC and Ms Emilie Pottle (instructed by McMillan Williams Solicitors Ltd) for the Second Appellant

Ms Alison Macdonald QC and Ms Emilie Pottle (instructed by National Legal Service) for the Third Appellant

Mr Ben Lloyd and Mr Richard Evans (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondents

Hearing date: 13 November 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentLord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Carr:


  1. This is the supplemental judgment of the Court in these three appeals following our judgment on 12 July 2018 [2018] EWHC 1762 (Admin). The full background and relevant facts are set out in that judgment, and we adopt below the same definitions and abbreviations.

  2. By our earlier judgment we dismissed the appeals of the First and Second Appellants, Mr Shumba and Mr Bechian, in so far as they were based on section 14 of the Act (passage of time) and section 21 of the Act (breach of Article 8 of the ECHR).

  3. On the ground of appeal common to all three Appellants, namely that extradition would breach their rights under Article 3 of the ECHR, we were satisfied on the evidence that, in relation to the four prisons with which we were concerned, there might be substantial grounds for believing that the Appellants faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if they were extradited. However, the evidence was only that the Appellants could be detained at those prisons, and it was not clear how much space they would have and, in particular whether it would be less than 3m2 or between 3m2 and 4m2. We therefore declined to discharge the Appellants immediately on Article 3 grounds. We concluded that there was sufficient evidence to require us to make a request for supplementary information of the French authorities in accordance with C-404/15 and C-659/15 Aranyosi and Cãldãraru [2016] QB 921 at [104] (see [87] to [89]).

  4. Requests were duly sent in respect of each Appellant in the following identical terms:

    i) In which part of which institution or institutions will [the Appellant] be detained if he is returned to France?

    ii) Will [the Appellant] be accommodated in a cell which provides him with at least 3m2 of personal space (excluding any in-cell sanitary facility) at all times throughout his detention? If the answer is Yes, will he have between 3m2 and 4m2?

    iii) Will the overall surface of the cell allow [the Appellant] to move freely between the furniture items in the cell at all times throughout his detention?

    iv) What will the other detention conditions be for [the Appellant] throughout his detention, including whether he will be accommodated in a cell where he or someone he is sharing with is sleeping on a mattress on the floor, what the sanitary facilities there will be and whether the toilet will be fully partitioned from the rest of the cell, how many hours a day he will be allowed out of his cell, what meals he will receive and whether there remains a serious problem with rats and bedbugs at the prison?

    Response from the French Ministry of Justice (``the MoJ'')

  5. The MoJ has provided responses, first on 7 September 2018, and then by second and third responses (following further questions from the Crown Prosecution Service) dated 18 October and 7 November 2018 respectively. The first response, whilst focussing on our questions, also referred to the fact that many French public prosecutors' offices had been receiving British requests for additional information about detention conditions in the short-stay prisons likely to house those extradited. The MoJ, acting as the central authority for judicial co-operation in criminal matters, intended to provide the British authorities not only with the data requested in this case, but also in the context of other requests made as part of the execution of other French EAWs.

  6. The information provided can be summarised so far as material for present purposes as follows:

    i) People handed over from the UK are almost invariably escorted by air. The entry point into France for the Appellants would be Orly (relevant court: Créteil) or Roissy...

To continue reading