Lord Advocate v Dean
Extradition will not be barred by poor prison conditions in the requesting state where it has given assurances that remove the real risk of treatment contrary to article 3, assessed in the light of the state's record.
Facts
Mr Dean, a British citizen, was convicted of drug offences in Taiwan and sentenced to imprisonment. He left Taiwan while on bail pending appeal and returned to Scotland. Taiwan, which has no extradition treaty with the United Kingdom, requested his extradition under a special arrangement. He argued that extradition would breach article 3, because of overcrowding and poor conditions in Taiwanese prisons, and the risk of violence from other prisoners. Taiwan gave detailed assurances about the conditions in which he would be held.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that extradition would not breach article 3. Lord Hodge said that the court must assess whether the assurances provided a sufficient guarantee that the person would be protected against the risk of ill treatment, considering factors such as the specificity of the assurances, the requesting state's record of compliance with assurances, whether compliance could be monitored, and the strength of the relations between the states. Taiwan's assurances were specific and could be monitored, and there was no reason to believe they would not be honoured, so they removed the real risk.
Related cases on extradition
- Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)
- HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, [2013] 1 AC 338
- Minister for Justice and Equality v LM Case C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586
- Norris v Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16, [2008] 1 AC 920
- Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67, [2006] 2 AC 1
- Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), [2016] 1 WLR 551
- Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198
Studying immigration and asylum law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
