Gricius v Siauliai Regional Court: High Court refuses Lithuanian prison caste system extradition challenge

The High Court has refused permission to appeal against extradition to Lithuania, holding that new evidence about the informal prisoner hierarchy does not arguably rebut the presumption that Lithuania will comply with its obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In Gricius v Siauliai Regional Court, Lithuania [2026] EWHC 2925 (Admin), Eardley J refused permission following a rolled-up hearing. The applicant, a Lithuanian national long resident in the UK, was convicted in Lithuania in 2021 of the rape of a minor, which he denies, and sentenced to four years and two months' imprisonment. District Judge Jackson ordered his extradition in March 2025.

The caste system

The appeal centred on the hierarchy inherited from the Soviet era, under which prisoners at the bottom, known as "untouchables", are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and violence. It was accepted that the applicant would be placed in that caste because of his conviction.

English courts have consistently held the presumption of compliance unrebutted in post-conviction Lithuanian cases, including Urbonas and Barkauskas v Lithuania [2024] EWHC 2815 (Admin). The duty is one of reasonable protection, and the presumption yields only to clear, cogent and compelling evidence approaching an international consensus.

Strasbourg authorities

The applicant relied on S.P. v Russia and D. v Latvia, in which the European Court of Human Rights found Article 3 breaches against low-caste prisoners even without physical violence. He argued that these cases required an enhanced analysis for those certain to become "untouchables".

Eardley J disagreed. The cases applied the established approach in Muršić v Croatia to individual prisoners and created no new test. Nor could the earlier English decisions be distinguished on the ground that those applicants were not sex offenders. The 2024 report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture showed that prisoners could be assigned untouchable status for many reasons, so that risk had already been considered.

The new evidence

The applicant relied on Lithuania's 2024 national plan, a 2025 report of the Seimas Ombudsman, and two reports by Karolis Liutkevičius, a former human rights adviser to the Lithuanian Prison Service. Mr Liutkevičius described the national plan as a hasty and unfunded "afterthought", questioned several infrastructure projects, and reported continuing staff shortages and limited efforts to dismantle the caste system. The Ombudsman found that prisoners were not, in reality, guaranteed a safe environment.

Considering the material de bene esse, Eardley J accepted that the presumption might be lost if the authorities' commitments proved insincere, or if they were unwilling or unable to make progress. However, the evidence also showed steps that were "not negligible". These included an agreement to investigate all inter-prisoner violence without a complaint, a planned second unit for high-risk prisoners, violence prevention committees, cell conversion work and a recruitment drive. Expert scepticism, however worthy of respect, fell far short of the "significant volume of reports" required by Krolik. A further CPT report, not yet published, might make a difference.

Article 8 and delay

The National Crime Agency took over three years to certify the arrest warrant and gave no explanation. Eardley J accepted that the district judge had arguably misdirected herself by leaving this out of the balance, applying Pabian v Poland [2024] EWHC 2431 (Admin). However, the omission could not arguably have changed the outcome. The applicant knew of his conviction for a very serious offence and must have recognised his precarious position, and had no dependent children or caring responsibilities.

Ben Joyes, instructed by Hodge, Jones & Allen, appeared for the applicant. Amanda Bostock, instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, appeared for the respondent.