Antonia Omirou v District Court in Nicosia, Cyprus [2026] EWHC 1471 (Admin)

[2026] EWHC 1471 (Admin)Case No AC-2024-LON-000363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 16/06/2026
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SWEETING
Between
Antonia OMIROUAppellantDistrict Court in Nicosia, CYPRUSRespondent
David Perry KC and George Hepburne Scott (instructed by Bark & Co) for AppellantLouisa Collins (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service – Extradition Unit) for RespondentHearing Hearing dates: 26 th February 2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 11am on 16.06.2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SWEETING

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) arising from a request by the Cypriot judicial authorities for the extradition of the Appellant, Ms Antonia Omirou, pursuant to a Part 1 warrant issued on 28 June 2023 and certified by the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) on 3 September 2023.[2]The Appellant is sought to stand trial in Cyprus in respect of three sets of criminal proceedings, arising from allegations of harassment and related conduct said to have occurred between 2020 and 2023.[3]Following her arrest, extradition was ordered by District Judge Minhas on 2 February 2024. The Appellant appealed that decision on a number of grounds including the adequacy of the warrant, absence of a prosecution decision, passage of time, proportionality, and Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”).[4]The appeal was heard by Collins Rice J, who, in a judgment dated 14 March 2025, dismissed the appeal in its entirety. An attempt to reopen the appeal on separate grounds (under sections 2 and 12A of the 2003 Act) was subsequently refused by Bennathan J on 8 April 2025.

Background

[5]The circumstances of the alleged offending are set out in the judgment of Collins-Rice J but may be summarised as follows.[6]The first matter (“the First Nicosia Proceedings”) arises from complaints made by the former wife of Ms Omirou’s partner (now husband). On 4 December 2020, the complainant reported to the police that she and her daughter had been persistently harassed by Ms Omirou. She stated that the conduct began in 2008 following family proceedings which awarded the complainant sole custody of her child. In its early phase, the conduct was said to include attendance at the family home and the child’s school, accompanied by disruptive behaviour and abusive language. The complainant stated that, after Ms Omirou moved to the United Kingdom in 2014, the harassment continued by electronic means. According to the complainant, abusive messages were directed to her and to close relatives via social media, using multiple accounts including accounts that impersonated members of her family. Messages were said to have been sent not only to the complainant’s personal social media accounts but also to accounts used for her business. Attempts to block and report the relevant accounts were said to have been ineffective because new accounts would be set up to continue the harassment.[7]A particular episode was alleged to have taken place on 3 December 2020, the day before the initial complaint. The complainant’s daughter, who had been operating an Instagram account for approximately three years and was then under the age of 16, is said to have received a series of messages purporting to be from a family member. The messages were described as containing personal details about the daughter’s background and health. They were described as being obscene, abusive, and containing threats to publicise the content further to the daughter’s friends. The daughter is said to have cerebral palsy and to suffer associated physical and mental difficulties, including panic attacks. The complainant alleged that both the messages and what she termed the “overall behaviour” of Ms Omirou caused distress to her and her daughter and had a serious impact on the daughter’s health and psychological condition.[8]On 29 January 2022, the complainant and her daughter made further statements. The daughter reported that Ms Omirou “keeps harassing” her by sending social media messages from a variety of accounts, including a fabricated account held out as belonging to the complainant’s business. The messages were characterised as obscene, offensive, insulting, and threatening towards both the daughter and the complainant. The statements alleged obsessive behaviour towards the daughter, causing fear, terror, serious annoyance, and psychological disturbance. The daughter expressed fear for her physical safety, noting that Ms Omirou knew her address and had intimate information about her life.[9]The complainant made a third statement on 28 February 2022. She alleged continued harassment of herself and her close family via social media, again including use of fabricated accounts, one of which impersonated the complainant. The conduct was described as “continuous” stalking and harassment, consisting of the posting of insulting, offensive, and obscene content, coupled with constant telephone calls of a similar nature. It was further alleged that Ms Omirou publicly disclosed the complainant’s address and telephone number. The statement repeated allegations of obsessive behaviour directed at the daughter, including sending material to the daughter’s school and to a young friend, and posting a photograph of the stepfather’s adoption application. These matters were said to have seriously affected the daughter’s daily life and psychological wellbeing, causing fear and terror. A specific incident was said to have occurred on the same day as the statement, involving an abusive and obscene telephone call made to the complainant’s business number (answered by an employee), during which the caller threatened to continue the harassment until the daughter took her own life.[10]In relation to this first matter, the warrant identifies the relevant Cypriot offences as harassment by a course of conduct (including an aggravated form of causing the victim to fear violence), stalking by a course of conduct (including contacting by any means, online monitoring, posting personal information on social media, and interfering with online posts, again with an aggravated form causing fear of violence), computer related forgery (including the creation of non-authentic data), data protection offences, and threatening violence or another unlawful act.[11]The second matter (“the Limassol Proceedings”) concerns a complaint made on 5 May 2023 by a woman who identified herself as the tenant of a property owned by Ms Omirou. She stated that she had fallen into rent arrears and moved to another address in February of that year. Thereafter, she alleged that she received insulting, offensive, and threatening messages via social media from Ms Omirou. By way of example, she cited a message sent on 17 March 2023 and two further messages sent in quick succession on 18 March 2023, which were said to contain strong abuse, obscenities, and threats. The offences specified in relation to this matter are harassment, stalking, and threatening violence.[12]The third matter (“the Second Nicosia Proceedings”) arises from a complaint first made on 1 February 2023 by two officials of the Service for the Care and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons. It relates to emails sent from an account later identified as belonging to Ms Omirou. The emails, addressed to the first official on 30 January 2023, 1 February 2023, and 9 March 2023, and to the second official on 30 January 2023, were described as threatening, disturbing, insulting, and containing obscenities. The offences identified in respect of this matter are harassment and stalking.[13]In summary therefore, the warrant set out three strands of alleged conduct on the part of Ms Omirou: i) A long running pattern of harassment and stalking focused on the former wife of her partner and the partner’s daughter, including online impersonation, publication of personal information, and threatening communications; ii) Threatening and abusive messages sent to a former tenant following a rent dispute; and iii) Threatening and abusive emails sent to public officials. The offences specified encompass harassment and stalking (in aggravated and non‑aggravated forms), computer‑related forgery, data protection infringements, and threats of violence or other unlawful acts.[14]In considering proportionality, Collins-Rice J concluded that the District Judge had not been wrong to find that there was a realistic prospect that the Appellant would receive a custodial sentence for offences of this type, including an immediate custodial sentence. She characterised the offending as serious criminal misconduct observing:
“The protracted course of conduct alleged against the Complainant and her vulnerable child would, if proven, amount to the sort of unwarranted oppressive, intrusive and abusive behaviour that causes misery and blights lives. It is a pattern of behaviour reproduced in small scale in the courses of conduct alleged in relation to her former tenant and her son, and against two public service employees. The overall picture of this alleged offending is one which is habitual, predatory, frightening and destructive of others’ entitlements to privacy and peace, directed to the less powerful and triggered by perceived grievances of a range of kinds, great or small.”

Costappis & others v Cyprus [2025] EWHC 785 (Admin)

[15]Shortly after judgment was handed down in the appeal before Collins-Rice J, there was a material development in the relevant jurisprudence. On 2 April 2025, the Administrative Court (Johnson J) handed down judgment in Costappis & others v Cyprus [2025] EWHC 785 (Admin). In that case, involving a male and a female appellant, the Court considered the implications of a recent report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (“CPT”) dated May 2024, which had not been available at the time of the earlier extradition hearings in that case.[16]Johnson J held that the fresh evidence contained in the 2024 CPT Report demonstrated a significant deterioration in prison conditions in Cyprus. Although assurances as to minimum personal space were capable of being relied upon, the wider conditions of detention required a “holistic assessment”. In the absence of further information addressing systemic deficiencies, such as shortages of beds and mattresses, poor sanitation, lack of ventilation, and limited out-of-cell activity, he concluded that there would be a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. In relation to the change in conditions identified by the 2024 CPT report he said:
“49. ... There is now the May 2024 report, which shows that prison conditions in Cyprus have significantly deteriorated since the time of the evidence that was before the judge. The extent of violence within the prisons does not mean that the conditions meet the threshold to engage article 3: the May 2024 report says that the vast majority of prisoners did not complain about ill-treatment by staff, and serious inter-prisoner violence was limited to "several cases". However, the report does show that there were significant systemic problems with the regime, particularly with a lack of beds and mattresses, poor sanitary facilities, and a lack of natural light, cell ventilation, and out of cell activities. The response to the report does not demonstrate that those issues have all been remedied. 50. The assurance only addresses personal space, ensuring that the appellants will have the bare minimum of 3 square metres. That bare minimum, taken together with the wider problems with the regime, means that there is now a real risk of the appellants facing inhuman or degrading treatment...”
[17]In light of that decision, and the emergence of new evidence concerning prison conditions, the Appellant applied to reopen her appeal to advance an Article 3 challenge based on the 2024 CPT Report and related material. That application was granted by Cheema Grubb J on 17 April 2025. The order reopening the appeal provided for: i) The appeal to be reopened; ii) Permission for the Appellant to rely upon the 2024 CPT Report; iii) Permission to add a new ground of appeal based on Article 3 ECHR; and iv) Permission to appeal on that sole ground. A stay on removal was also granted pending determination of the appeal.[18]The effect of that order was that the previously determined appeal was reopened for the limited purpose of considering whether extradition would be incompatible with Article 3, having regard to: i) The updated evidence of prison conditions in Cyprus; and ii) Any assurances provided by the requesting state.[19]On 17 June 2025 Johnson J made an order dismissing the appeal in Costappis following the provision of further information by the Cypriot Ministry of Justice. His reasons state:
“The further information addresses each of the points raised by the court. Most importantly, the appellants will have access to the yard between 7am and 5pm. That very significantly mitigates the potentially meagre in-cell personal space. It also provides a guarantee of natural light, ventilation, access to a bed and mattress and sufficient provision of toilet facilities. There is no requirement that toilets will be in-cell so long as, as is provided for, prompt access is provided to an out of cell toilet - that avoids any real risk of forced slopping out. The respondent can be relied upon to act in accordance with the further information. In the light of the further information there is no real risk that either appellant will be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Appellant

[20]The Appellant was born on 16 February 1981 and was 44 years old at the time of the substantive hearing.[21]The Appellant is a United Kingdom citizen who has lived in this jurisdiction since 2014, having moved here with her then partner, now her husband. She has an established and settled family life in England. The evidence describes the relationship with her husband as close and supportive and the role played by him in caring for her following her recent surgery.[22]Since her move to the United Kingdom, the Appellant is said to have lived an exemplary and law-abiding life. She has been constructively and almost continuously employed, most recently working in local government.[23]The Appellant would be detained, if extradited, as a remand prisoner pending trial. It is said that any such period of detention is likely to be prolonged, given evidence of delays in the Cypriot criminal justice system, and may in practice exceed any custodial sentence ultimately imposed, if one were imposed at all. It was pointed out that there was no address in Cyprus to which she could be bailed pending trial.[24]The Appellant relies upon a number of medical conditions which she contends are material to the assessment of whether her detention in Cyprus would be compatible with Article 3. In particular, she suffers from highly symptomatic asthma, which is said to be exacerbated by poor ventilation, overcrowding and inadequate hygiene. She also has a persistent nasal disorder, for which she has been advised that ENT surgery is required.[25]In addition, the Appellant underwent significant gynaecological surgery in December 2025, namely a laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, involving the removal of her uterus and both ovaries. In the period following that operation she is described as having been bed bound and as remaining vulnerable to infection, complications and physical deterioration during her recovery. The medical material also refers to ongoing post-operative pain and related symptoms.[26]The Appellant’s case is that these conditions would make her a particularly vulnerable detainee and that detention in conditions of overcrowding, limited ventilation and pressure on healthcare services would carry a heightened risk of harm. The Respondent does not accept that contention, submitting that the medical conditions relied upon are neither uncommon nor incapable of being managed in custody, particularly in light of the assurances given by the Cypriot authorities, which include provision for medical assessment on admission and allocation to an appropriate cell having regard to her needs.

Assurances

[27]The Cypriot authorities have provided two formal assurances, both coming from the Ministry of Justice and Public Order.[28]First, by letter dated 20 December 2023, the Permanent Secretary assured the Court that, upon surrender, the Appellant would be detained in conditions compliant with Article 3 ECHR. In particular, it was stated that she would benefit from a minimum of 3 square metres of personal space throughout her detention (including during any transfers), and that the overall size of the cell would permit her to move freely between the furniture. The cell would be equipped with the usual items of furniture, including a bed, desk and chair. It was further indicated that there would be a sufficient number of toilets and showers within each prison wing, together with facilities for socialising and for personal exercise. The assurance emphasised that the management of the prison system is directed towards ensuring full respect for the human rights of prisoners.[29]Secondly, following the decision in Costappis, a further and more detailed assurance was provided by letter dated 10 June 2025. In that letter the Cypriot authorities confirmed that the Appellant would be provided with her own bed and mattress. It was further stated that there are wings within Nicosia Central Prison which contain in cell toilet facilities for both male and female prisoners, and that arrangements would be made to ensure that her accommodation is appropriate. The authorities expressly undertook that her cell would be well ventilated and would have access to natural light, and that she would have continuous access to hot water and heating. In terms of the daily regime, it was confirmed that she would have access to the courtyard between 07:00 and 17:00 each day, with prisoners ordinarily being locked in their cells at 21:00 or 22:00.[30]In addition, the June 2025 assurance addresses the Appellant’s reception into custody. It provides that, upon admission to the prison, she will be interviewed by trained officers within the Admissions and Release Department and will undergo medical examination by medical officers. The outcome of that assessment will determine the allocation of an appropriate cell. The assurance concludes by reiterating the commitment of the prison authorities to respecting the human rights of detainees and addressing any concerns arising during detention.[31]These assurances are relied upon by the Respondent as providing specific guarantees in respect of the matters identified as material in Costappis, namely personal space, access to a bed and bedding, sanitation, ventilation, natural light and time out of cell, together with provision for initial medical assessment and appropriate placement within the prison estate.[32]The assurances provided by the Cypriot authorities in the present case are materially indistinguishable from those considered by Johnson J in Costappis. As in that case, the assurances come from the Ministry of Justice and Public Order and are given in formal terms by a senior official capable of binding the prison authorities.[33]In Costappis, the initial assurance addressed personal space, guaranteeing a minimum of 3 square metres. However, following the emergence of the 2024 CPT report, the Court required further information directed to wider systemic concerns, including the availability of beds and mattresses, sanitary arrangements, ventilation, natural light and the out of cell regime.[34]The supplementary assurances subsequently provided in Costappis dealt expressly with those matters. In particular, they confirmed that each appellant would have his own bed and mattress, that the cells would be well ventilated and benefit from natural light, that there would be sufficient sanitary facilities (including access to toilets), and that prisoners would have extended access to the yard (from 07:00 to 17:00), so mitigating the effects of limited personal space.[35]The assurances in the present case adopt the same structure and address the same matters in substantially identical terms. The Appellant is likewise guaranteed a minimum of 3 square metres of personal space. The further assurance dated 10 June 2025 mirrors that provided in Costappis in confirming: i) Provision of a bed and mattress, ii) Adequate sanitary arrangements, including access to toilets, iii) Proper ventilation and natural light, and iv) A daily regime involving access to the courtyard between 07:00 and 17:00.[36]To that extent, the present assurances correspond directly to the additional information which Johnson J held to be sufficient to dispel the Article 3 risk in Costappis, particularly in relation to the concerns identified in the CPT material as to inadequate bedding, poor sanitation, lack of ventilation and limited out of cell activity.[37]In fact, the assurances in the present case go marginally further, in that they include express provision for the Appellant to undergo medical assessment upon admission and to be allocated to an appropriate cell having regard to that assessment. Whilst Costappis also involved assurances as to reception procedures, the articulation of that element in the present case is, if anything, more explicit. On behalf of the Appellant, Mr Perry KC, confirmed that it was not suggested that the assurances were given in bad faith, simply that they were inadequate.

The 2025 CPT Report

[38]The most recent CPT material relied upon in the appeal is the report published on 10 December 2025, following an ad hoc visit to Cyprus between 1 and 4 April 2025. It is common ground that this report provides the most up-to-date independent assessment of conditions within the Cypriot prison estate.[39]The report focuses on conditions at Nicosia Central Prison, where the Appellant would be detained. Its findings record that the position for detainees had, in broad terms, remained much the same as at the time of the earlier inspections, with several longstanding difficulties persisting. These include overcrowding, with prisoners in some instances required to sleep on mattresses on the floor in cells not designed for such occupancy; continuing problems in relation to sanitation, including the absence of in cell toilet facilities in many blocks; and concerns as to prisoner safety, stemming from inter prisoner violence and staffing shortages. The report also identifies limitations in the daily regime and a lack of material improvement in the provision of healthcare services.[40]The Appellant places significant reliance upon this report as providing recent and independent evidence of systemic deficiencies within the Cypriot prison estate. It is submitted that the matters identified by the CPT demonstrate that the concerns previously articulated, including those considered in Costappis, have not been resolved and in some respects have deteriorated. On that basis, the Appellant contends that the assurances provided in the present case, which were given before the publication of the report, cannot be regarded as sufficient to dispel the risk of ill-treatment, particularly when account is taken of her individual medical vulnerabilities.[41]The Respondent does not dispute that the CPT report constitutes admissible and relevant background material. It accepts that the report identifies continuing concerns as to aspects of the prison regime. However, the Respondent submits that the proper approach, consistent with the authorities, is to assess whether specific and binding assurances given by the requesting state are sufficient to address any such concerns in the case of the individual requested person. In that regard, it is said that the report does not undermine the reliability of the assurances given in the present case, which are directed precisely to the matters identified by the CPT. Further, attention is drawn to the fact that the report and the accompanying governmental response indicate that steps are being taken by the Cypriot authorities to address issues of overcrowding and resources, which is said to support the conclusion that the assurances can be relied upon.[42]My attention was drawn in argument to the parts of the CPT report dealing with healthcare and passive smoking as an example of the Appellant's particular vulnerability not being addressed in the assurances. The Appellant’s asthmatic condition was the subject of submissions in the appeal hearing before Collins-Rice J and features in several paragraphs of her judgment in relation to the Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise. She concluded that the Appellant’s asthma, respiratory problems and other medical conditions were capable of being managed in the prison environment and, if necessary, in hospital in Cyprus. The Appellant’s most recent statements say that her asthma condition has worsened, and the risks associated with it have increased although there does not appear to be much direct medical evidence to that effect.[43]The CPT addressed passive smoking expressly in the section of its April 2025 report dealing with conditions of detention (at Nicosia Central Prison). The Committee recorded that smoking was permitted in communal spaces and cells, with the consequence that non-smoking prisoners were routinely exposed to passive smoking and its associated health risks. The CPT observed that such exposure is not merely undesirable but may, in certain circumstances, amount to a form of ill treatment, referring in that context to the case law of the ECHR on exposure to second hand smoke in detention.[44]The CPT therefore recommended that smokers and non-smokers should be offered separate accommodation, and that designated areas for smoking should be established within the prison. It further recommended that the Cypriot authorities put in place measures to ensure, at a minimum, effective protection from the harms of passive smoking, including the designation of smoke free accommodation, restrictions or prohibitions on smoking in areas of common use, and adequate ventilation throughout the prison. The Committee also encouraged the development of programmes to assist prisoners in addressing nicotine dependence.[45]In its published response to the CPT’s April 2025 report, the Government of Cyprus did not accept that prisoners were left without protection from passive smoking and maintained that measures were already in place or being reinforced. In particular, the Government stated that smoking is prohibited in public and communal areas of Nicosia Central Prison in accordance with domestic legislation. It asserted that clear “no smoking” notices are displayed throughout the prison and that communal areas are equipped with ventilation systems intended to ensure adequate air circulation. The response emphasised that smoking is not permitted in areas such as kitchens, educational facilities, gyms and workshops, which are treated as smoke free spaces.[46]The Government further indicated that prisoner accommodation is allocated having regard to smoking habits, with the aim of separating smokers and non-smokers where possible. It stated that efforts are made, at the point of admission and during allocation, to minimise exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke.[47]In addition, the response referred to the availability of ventilation and air circulation systems within prison wings and cells, and to ongoing maintenance of those systems by the competent state authorities. The Government also pointed to programmes intended to support smoking reduction and cessation, as part of a broader public health approach within the prison system.[48]I accept that the 2025 CPT report forms part of the evidential matrix relevant to the Article 3 assessment. Whilst the Appellant relies upon it as demonstrating a continuing systemic risk, the core issue is whether it (either alone or in conjunction with the other matters relied upon) displaces the conclusion that the specific assurances provided in this case are insufficient to meet that risk.

Fresh Evidence

[49]The Appellant has made four applications to adduce fresh evidence (FE1 to FE4). The thrust of the Appellant’s applications is first, to support an argument based on her individual vulnerability and medical condition, and secondly, to challenge the adequacy of the Cypriot prison system more generally by reference to updated material on prison conditions.[50]FE1 (July 2025): This application is directed to the Appellant’s personal circumstances, in particular her medical condition. The purpose is to establish that she suffers from ongoing health issues which render her especially vulnerable to detention conditions and, by implication, that her needs may not be adequately met in custody in Cyprus.[51]FE2 (December 2025): This application introduces the expert report of Ms Leto Cariolou. Its focus is systemic rather than individual. The purpose is to adduce expert material on prison conditions in Nicosia Central Prison, drawing on CPT reports and other sources, in order to demonstrate that conditions remain such as to give rise to a real risk of Article 3 ill treatment notwithstanding the assurances.[52]FE3 (February 2026): This application is cumulative. It serves two related purposes: i) To update and reinforce the Appellant’s medical case (through further medical documentation and an updated proof); and ii) To supplement and update the prison conditions evidence (through an addendum report engaging with the 2025 CPT material). In substance, it seeks to bring both limbs of the Appellant’s case, individual vulnerability and systemic conditions, up to date.[53]FE4 (February 2026): This final application is more limited. It provides supporting evidence from the Appellant’s partner, directed at her need for care and the practical consequences of her condition, thereby reinforcing the argument that she is a vulnerable detainee whose circumstances require particular consideration.[54]The Respondent opposes each of the Appellant’s applications to adduce fresh evidence. As a threshold matter, it is submitted that the applications fail to satisfy the strict requirements identified in Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin); that is that it was not available at the extradition hearing and had it been, it would have resulted in the District Judge deciding a question before him at the extradition hearing differently.[55]In relation to the material concerning the Appellant’s medical condition (FE1, FE3 and FE4), the Respondent submits that it does not establish any condition of such severity or complexity as could not be managed within the Cypriot prison system. It was emphasised in the Respondent’s submissions that the assurances provided include provision for medical examination upon admission and allocation to an appropriate cell. In those circumstances, the medical evidence, it is said, adds nothing of substance to the Article 3 argument.[56]In relation to the prison conditions evidence (FE2 and the addendum material in FE3), the Respondent advances two principal arguments: i) First, it contends that the report of Ms Cariolou is not properly admissible as expert evidence. It is submitted that she lacks the requisite expertise as a prison conditions expert, that her report contains opinion evidence beyond her competence, and that it is unsupported by the underlying source material to which it refers. ii) Secondly, and in any event, it is submitted that the material does not materially advance the Appellant’s case beyond the concerns already considered in Costappis.[57]The Respondent further submits that the most recent CPT material, whilst admissible as background evidence, does not undermine the reliability of the assurances provided by the Cypriot authorities. On the contrary, it is said to demonstrate that efforts are being made to address systemic issues, and that the specific guarantees given in this case remain sufficient to dispel any real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. The report relates to prison conditions overall but the specific block, Block 3, where women are accommodated is not prone to all of the failings identified and progress had been noted.[58]Whilst it was accepted that I should consider the new evidence in the context of the substantive issues raised in the appeal, the Respondent’s position is that none of the material relied upon meets the statutory threshold for admission. It does not, it is argued, raise any new issue of substance, nor does it provide evidence that would have led the District Judge to reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, the Respondent submits that the applications should be refused and the appeal determined on the basis of the material already before the Court.

Expert Evidence

[59]The Appellant relies upon reports prepared by Ms Cariolou, whose role, background and evidence were addressed in some detail in the parties’ submissions.[60]Ms Cariolou is a lawyer by profession. She is described as a barrister and advocate specialising in criminal law, international criminal law and European human rights law. She is authorised to practise in both England and Wales and the Republic of Cyprus and is subject to professional regulation in both jurisdictions. Her experience of prison conditions derives primarily from her work as a criminal defence practitioner in Cyprus, including visits to clients held in custody, together with her knowledge of publicly available material concerning the Cypriot prison system. Her involvement in cases giving rise to Article 3 issues is however wider than her work as a criminal advocate.[61]The procedural history by which her evidence was obtained is as follows. On 1 July 2025 the Appellant applied for an extension of her representation order to permit the instruction of an expert report addressing(i) prison conditions in Cyprus and(ii) the particular risks said to arise from her medical condition. That application was granted, and Ms Cariolou was thereafter instructed to prepare a report.[62]Pursuant to that instruction, Ms Cariolou produced an initial report dated 29 November 2025, which was served on 1 December 2025 and, as referred to earlier, forms the subject of the application to adduce fresh evidence FE2. Subsequently, in light of further developments, including the publication of the more recent CPT material, she prepared an addendum report dated 2 February 2026, which was relied upon in another fresh evidence application, FE3.[63]The stated purpose of Ms Cariolou’s reports is to provide the Court with a synthesis of material relating to conditions within Nicosia Central Prison, together with an assessment of the implications of those conditions for the Appellant. Her reports draw extensively upon publicly available sources, including CPT reports, governmental material and other open-source information, which she collates and analyses. In addition, she seeks to address the interaction between those conditions and the Appellant’s particular medical circumstances.[64]In terms of substance, the reports advance three central propositions: i) First, they describe what is said to be a pattern of systemic deficiencies within the prison estate, including overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, poor ventilation, deficiencies in healthcare provision and concerns as to prisoner safety. ii) Secondly, they assert that those deficiencies are chronic and persistent, rather than isolated or transitory, and that previous efforts at reform have not adequately remedied the position. iii) Thirdly, they express the opinion that, when those systemic conditions are considered in conjunction with the Appellant’s medical condition, there is a real risk that she would be exposed to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3.[65]The Respondent advances a number of criticisms of Ms Cariolou’s reports, which can be summarised as follows: i) First, it is submitted that Ms Cariolou does not possess the requisite expertise to give opinion evidence on prison conditions. She is a practising lawyer, not a prison inspector, academic or specialist in custodial systems. Her experience derives largely from acting for clients and visiting prisons in that capacity. In those circumstances, it is said that she is not properly qualified to express expert opinions on systemic prison conditions or compliance with Article 3, and that any such opinions fall outside the scope of admissible expert evidence. ii) Secondly, the Respondent contends that the reports impermissibly stray into advocacy and evaluative opinion, rather than objective, independent assistance to the Court. It is submitted that the tone and content of the reports go beyond the collation of material and instead advance partisan conclusions, including assertions of “systemic” failure and risk, without a proper evidential foundation. iii) Thirdly, there is a methodological objection: the reports rely heavily on open-source material which has not been produced to the Court. References are made in footnotes to press articles and other sources (many in Greek), but the underlying material itself was not provided (at least not until very close to the hearing). This, the Respondent submits, prevents proper scrutiny of the sources, inhibits any meaningful challenge, and undermines the reliability and weight of the conclusions drawn. iv) Fourthly, it is said that the reports contain opinions outside the author’s expertise, including in relation to medical matters and the likely impact of prison conditions on the Appellant’s health. To that extent, the evidence is said to be inadmissible or of no weight. v) Finally, and in any event, the Respondent submits that the reports do not materially advance the Appellant’s case. Once the opinion evidence is discounted, the reports add little beyond the CPT material already before the Court and fail to engage with or undermine the specific assurances given by the Cypriot authorities.[66]Taken together, these matters are said to justify a refusal to admit the reports and, in the alternative, little or no weight being attached to Ms Cariolou’s evidence.

The Legal Framework

[67]Article 3 of the ECHR provides, in absolute terms, that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. By virtue of section 21A of the 2003 Act, extradition must be refused if it would be incompatible with the requested person’s Convention rights, including Article 3.[68]The burden rests on the requested person to establish that extradition would give rise to a breach of Article 3. The test is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the individual would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if surrendered. The assessment is prospective and fact sensitive.[69]Article 3 sets a high threshold. Treatment must attain a minimum level of severity before it falls within its scope. That assessment is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, including the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects, and the personal characteristics of the individual concerned. Accordingly, conditions which may be tolerable for one detainee may, in the light of particular vulnerabilities, reach the Article 3 threshold for another.[70]In cases concerning prison conditions, the Strasbourg jurisprudence has provided more specific guidance in relation to particular features of detention and the overall approach to be adopted. In Muršić v Croatia Application no. 7334/13, Judgment 20 October 2016,(2017) 65 EHRR 1, the Grand Chamber held that detention in conditions affording less than three square metres of personal space gives rise to a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3, unless three cumulative conditions are satisfied: the reduction in space is short, occasional and minor; it is accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement and out of cell activities; and the overall conditions of detention are otherwise compatible with Article 3. However, even where the minimum personal space threshold is met, the Court must undertake an “holistic” assessment of the material conditions of detention.[71]Where the requesting state is a member of the Council of Europe and the European Union, there is a strong, though rebuttable, presumption that it will comply with its obligations under Article 3. However, where cogent evidence is adduced demonstrating a real risk of ill treatment, often by reference to authoritative and up to date reports identifying systemic deficiencies, extradition must be refused unless the requesting state provides assurances sufficient to dispel that risk. In the present case, the Appellant relies in particular on the most recent CPT report as evidence of such deficiencies.[72]The principles governing reliance on assurances are well settled. (see Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2012] 55 EHRR 1). The question is whether, in their practical application, the assurances provide a sufficient guarantee that the individual will be protected against the real risk identified. In assessing their adequacy and reliability, the court has regard to a number of matters including: the specificity of the assurances; the authority by whom they are given and whether that authority can bind those responsible for detention; whether they address treatment which is lawful in the requesting state; the requesting state’s record of compliance with similar assurances; and the availability of mechanisms for verification.[73]The principle of mutual trust is of central importance. As explained by the Supreme Court in Zabalotnyi v Hungary [2021] UKSC 14, even where there is evidence of systemic problems within a prison system, a requesting state which is a Convention state and EU member will ordinarily retain a presumption of compliance with specific assurances given in an individual case, absent concrete and compelling evidence undermining their reliability [44]:
“... Nevertheless, having regard to the decisions of the ECtHR and the CJEU on the subject, it is clear that where the requesting state is a party to the ECHR and a member state of the European Union there is a presumption that it will comply with its human rights obligations and assurances given in support of those obligations, and that cogent evidence will be required to rebut that presumption (see Ilia v Appeal Court in Athens, Greece [2015] EWHC 547 (Admin); [2015] ACD 89, para 40, per Aikens LJ and Georgiev v Regional Prosecutor’s Office, Shuman, Bulgaria [2018] EWHC 359 (Admin) at [8] and [61], per Hickinbottom LJ). Even if the requesting state has lost the general presumption that it will comply with its obligations under article 3 in relation to its prison estate as a whole, it will still normally enjoy a presumption that it will comply with specific assurances given in individual cases (see Jane v Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania [2018] EWHC 1122 (Admin) at [54]— [55], per Hickinbottom LJ; Fuzesi [2018] EWHC 1885 (Admin); [2018] ACD 99, para 33, per Singh LJ).”
[74]In assessing whether Article 3 would be violated, the court must consider all relevant and properly updated material. Reports of bodies such as the CPT may provide important evidence of general conditions and form part of the evidential matrix. Such material is not, however, determinative. The ultimate question is whether, taking account of the general conditions disclosed by that material, the individual’s particular characteristics and vulnerabilities, and any assurances relied upon, there remains a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.[75]The exercise therefore requires an evaluative judgment as to the interaction between: i) The general conditions of detention (as evidenced, for example, by the CPT material); ii) The specific assurances relied upon by the Respondent; and iii) The Appellant’s individual medical and personal circumstances.

The Arguments in Summary

[76]The Appellant submits that her extradition to Cyprus would expose her to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. In support of that case, she seeks to rely on the fresh evidence, including medical material and the reports prepared by Ms Cariolou. Those reports conclude that: i) Even detainees in good health face risk in the prevailing conditions; ii) Detainees with the Appellant’s medical vulnerabilities are at heightened risk; iii) The combination of systemic deficiencies and personal vulnerabilities gives rise to a real and substantial risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.[77]In light of the 2024 and 2025 CPT Reports, there is, it is submitted, a real risk of Article 3 ill treatment in the absence of sufficiently detailed and specific supplementary information or additional assurances. It is argued that the present case falls within the same analytical framework as Costappis, and that the court must conduct the same holistic assessment in light of the updated evidence. On any such assessment the Appellant contends that the assurances provided by the Cypriot authorities are insufficient to dispel the identified risk.[78]Although the assurances address matters such as bed space, ventilation, access to hot water and time in the yard, they are said to be: i) Expressed in general terms; ii) Directed to systemic conditions rather than the Appellant’s individual circumstances; iii) Insufficiently detailed to address the specific deficiencies identified in the CPT material.[79]In particular, the Appellant submits that the assurances do not adequately address: i) The systemic problems of overcrowding and sanitation; ii) The availability and quality of medical care; iii) The risks arising from violence or inadequate supervision; iv) The impact of prolonged remand detention in substandard conditions.[80]The Appellant places significant reliance on her personal circumstances, submitting that these materially heighten the Article 3 risk. It is said that she is vulnerable by reason of: i) Respiratory conditions, including severe asthma; ii) An ongoing nasal disorder requiring surgery; iii) Recent major surgery (a hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy), from which she was still recovering at the relevant time, and; iv) Consequent susceptibility to infection, pain, and physical deterioration.[81]She also relies upon the psychological impact of the proceedings and the potential effect of detention on her mental health. It is submitted that, in a custodial environment characterised by poor ventilation, hygiene, and limited healthcare, these vulnerabilities place her at a “markedly increased risk of harm”. Accordingly, she contends that there are substantial grounds for believing that her extradition would expose her to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, such that extradition would be incompatible with Article 3 and she must be discharged.[82]The Respondent submits that the Appellant has failed to establish a real risk of Article 3 ill treatment. While accepting that the CPT report identifies concerns about prison conditions, it is submitted that such material is background evidence only. The Respondent relies on the specific assurances given by the Cypriot authorities, which are said to be clear, detailed and materially indistinguishable from those accepted in Costappis.[83]In the context of a request from a Council of Europe and EU Member State, there is a strong presumption that the requesting state will comply with its obligations under Article 3. That presumption may only be displaced by cogent evidence. Further, where assurances are given by the requesting state, the court must ordinarily rely upon them in accordance with the principle of mutual trust, unless there is evidence undermining their reliability. The Respondent’s primary submission is that the assurances provided by the Cypriot Ministry of Justice are clear, specific and reliable, and are sufficient to dispel any Article 3 risk.[84]The Respondent submits that these assurances satisfy the criteria identified in Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2012] 55 EHRR 1, and that they are given by an appropriate and authoritative body capable of ensuring compliance. The Respondent itself places significant reliance on the decision of Johnson J in Costappis. It is submitted that: i) The concerns raised by the 2024 CPT Report were addressed in that case by the provision of further information and assurances; ii) Those assurances were accepted by the Court as sufficient; iii) The present assurances are in materially identical terms to those accepted in Costappis.[85]The Respondent therefore contends that there is no basis for reaching a different conclusion in the present case, and that the Court should follow the reasoning and outcome in Costappis.[86]The Respondent accepts that the CPT reports identify concerns in relation to prison conditions, including overcrowding and staffing issues. However, it is submitted that: i) Those concerns do not establish a breach of the Article 3 threshold; ii) They reflect systemic challenges rather than conditions giving rise to a real risk of ill treatment; iii) The Cypriot authorities are taking active steps to address these issues, including the expansion of prison capacity and recruitment of staff.[87]The Respondent further submits that the existence of ongoing reform efforts demonstrates good faith and supports the reliability of the assurances. Applying the holistic approach endorsed in Costappis, the Respondent submits that the combination of: i) Guaranteed personal space; ii) Access to outdoor exercise and activities; iii) Provision of bedding and sanitation; iv) The ability to monitor compliance with the assurances; means that there is no real risk of Article 3 ill treatment.[88]In addition, the Respondent relies on out of cell time and access to the yard as significantly mitigating any limitations in cell space and conditions. It is further submitted that the Appellant’s medical conditions are not exceptional and can be managed in custody, particularly in light of the assurances. The Respondent opposes the fresh evidence applications, arguing that Ms Cariolou lacks the requisite expertise in prison conditions and that, in any event, none of the proposed material meets the Fenyvesi test or would have led to a different outcome below.[89]The Respondent submits that the Appellant’s medical condition does not materially elevate the Article 3 risk. In particular: i) The conditions relied upon (such as asthma) are relatively common; ii) There is no evidence of complex or specialist treatment requirements; iii) There is no reason to conclude that appropriate medical care cannot be provided in Cyprus; iv) The assurances provide for medical assessment on admission and allocation to a suitable unit.[90]To the extent that the Appellant is currently recovering from surgery, the Respondent submits that any temporary issue as to fitness to travel can be addressed, if necessary, by postponement under section 25 of the 2003 Act, and does not justify discharge.[91]The Respondent rejects the Appellant’s submission that she faces disproportionate detention on remand.[92]It is argued that: i) The conduct of criminal proceedings in Cyprus is a matter for the Cypriot courts; ii) There is no evidence of systemic unfairness or breach of Article 6; iii) Any suggestion that the Appellant might receive a non-custodial sentence or a sentence which will already have been served is speculative and does not advance the Article 3 claim.[93]In summary the Respondent submits that: i) There is no cogent evidence establishing a real risk of Article 3 ill treatment; ii) The CPT material does not displace the presumption of compliance; iii) The assurances provided are clear, specific and directly address the relevant risks; iv) The present case is indistinguishable from Costappis, in which similar assurances were accepted; v) The Appellant’s personal circumstances and fresh evidence do not justify a different conclusion.[94]Accordingly, the Respondent invites the Court to rely upon the assurances, reject the Article 3 ground, and dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the order for extradition.

Discussion and conclusions

[95]The Appellant bears the burden of establishing that her extradition to Cyprus would expose her to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.[96]The Appellant relies heavily on the most recent CPT report as demonstrating systemic deficiencies at Nicosia Central Prison. I accept that the CPT report is an important and authoritative source of background evidence, and that it identifies continuing problems, including overcrowding, sanitation, ventilation and aspects of the regime. Those matters are not in dispute, and I have considered the reports in detail.[97]However, the CPT material does not stand alone. It does not mandate a conclusion that any individual detainee would inevitably be exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3. The Strasbourg jurisprudence makes clear that even where systemic deficiencies are identified, the assessment must remain focused on the risk to the individual, taking account of all relevant circumstances, including any specific assurances given. The CPT report therefore forms part of the evidential matrix, but it is not determinative.[98]The assurances provided by the Cypriot authorities are specific, detailed and given by an authority capable of binding the prison administration. They address directly the matters identified by the CPT and relied upon by the Appellant, including personal space, provision of a bed and mattress, sanitation, ventilation, natural light, access to out of cell activity, and medical assessment on admission.[99]The assurances are in materially the same terms as those considered and accepted by Johnson J in Costappis. There is no material distinction between the assurances given in that case and those relied upon here. In particular, the guarantee of extended daily access to the courtyard significantly mitigates the effects of limited in cell space, and the assurances expressly address the issues of bedding, ventilation and sanitation which were of concern in the CPT reports. Whilst the 2025 CPT report was published in December 2025 it related to an inspection carried out in April of that year. The second detailed assurance was provided some months later in June and I consider that I am entitled and bound to conclude that it was a current assurance as to prison conditions. There is also a Government response after the publication of the 2025 report.[100]Applying the principles in Othman and Zabolotnyi, and bearing in mind the principle of mutual trust applicable to a requesting state which is both an EU member and a Convention state, I am satisfied that the assurances in this case are capable of being relied upon. The Appellant has not adduced cogent evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption that Cyprus will comply with them in practice.[101]The Appellant is a woman in her forties and suffers from asthma, a nasal condition requiring ENT intervention, and the aftereffects of significant gynaecological surgery undertaken in late 2025. I accept that these matters are relevant, and that Article 3 requires consideration of individual vulnerability.[102]However, the medical evidence does not establish that the Appellant’s conditions are of such severity or complexity that they could not be adequately managed in custody. There is no evidence that she requires highly specialised treatment unavailable in Cyprus, or that her conditions are so exceptional as to place her at particular risk even in detention conditions meeting the minimum standards reflected in the assurances. The assurances expressly provide for medical assessment on admission and appropriate allocation within the prison estate. In those circumstances, the Appellant’s medical position does not tip the balance towards a conclusion that there will be a risk of a breach of Article 3.[103]The Appellant places considerable reliance on the reports of Ms Cariolou. I have considered that material with care, but I am not persuaded that it carries the weight contended for.[104]Ms Cariolou is a qualified lawyer with experience in criminal and human rights law. However, her professional background does not establish her as an expert in prison conditions or penology. She has not conducted an inspection of Nicosia Central Prison, nor does she possess specialist expertise comparable to that of a prison inspector or academic specialist in custodial systems. Much of her report consists of collation and commentary on open-source material, including CPT reports, coupled with evaluative opinions on Article 3 compliance. To the extent that the reports advance opinion on matters outside her professional expertise including medical matters, they cannot be accorded the status of expert evidence. Her reports, though no doubt intended to be helpful, on occasions, in my view, stray into advocacy.[105]In any event, even treating the reports as a collation of material rather than expert opinion, they do not materially advance the Appellant’s case. They largely rehearse concerns already identified in the CPT material and do not engage in a meaningful way with the effect of the specific assurances given in this case. They do not therefore undermine my conclusion as to the adequacy and reliability of those assurances.[106]As far as the fresh evidence applications are concerned, applying the principles in Fenyvesi, I am not satisfied that any of the proposed material meets the statutory test.[107]Much of the evidence post-dates the decision below, but novelty alone is insufficient. None of the material, whether considered individually or cumulatively, would have led the District Judge to reach a different conclusion, nor would it have required the Appellant’s discharge. The medical material does not establish an Article 3 risk for the reasons already given, and the prison conditions evidence does not displace the effect of the assurances. In those circumstances, the applications to adduce fresh evidence are refused.[108]Considering the evidence as a whole, I am not persuaded that the Appellant has established substantial grounds for believing that her extradition to Cyprus would expose her to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Article 3 ground of appeal therefore fails. The fresh evidence applications are refused, and the order for extradition is upheld. END