QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
SIGITAS JANUSEVICIUS |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA |
Respondent |
____________________
Jonathan Swain (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 22.7.21
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE FORDHAM :
Introduction
The Article 3 Ground of Appeal
Bartulis
Departing from Bartulis?
Overcrowding
Three suggested bases for finding Article 3 incompatibility
Six features of the case
History of gang-targeting: the argument
History of intravenous drug-use: the argument
Mental health conditions: the argument
My conclusion on Article 3
Points about the evidence on appeal
History of gang-targeting: discussion
History of intravenous drug use: discussion
Mental health conditions: discussion
Postscript: obtaining further information
The Section 25 Ground of Appeal
The section 25 argument
The section 25 focus is on 'stage 3': following arrival at the Lithuanian prison
The section 25 focus is on 'involuntary' action (during the process of extradition)
This is not a 'whatever steps are taken' case
The argument rests ultimately on the absence of a prior individualised plan
My conclusions in relation to section 25
Section 25: back to Bartulis
Overall conclusion