High Court dismisses Colak's extradition appeal after Türkiye provides Uckak-style assurance

The High Court has dismissed an appeal against the extradition of Ferdi Colak to Türkiye, finding that a fresh assurance from the Turkish government sufficiently addressed concerns over his treatment during any retrial.

In Ferdi Colak v Government of the Republic of Türkiye [2026] EWHC 1839 (Admin), Mr Justice Johnson considered whether the so-called Yalvaç assurance, which guarantees detention at Yalvaç T Type Closed Prison with a minimum of four square metres of personal space, needed to be supplemented to address the possibility that Mr Colak might be moved to another prison in order to attend a retrial in person.

Mr Colak's extradition had been sought since 2017 to serve a nine-year sentence for offences equivalent to false imprisonment, following convictions upheld on appeal in 2017. The case had proceeded through Westminster Magistrates' Court and a lengthy series of appeals, delayed in part by parallel asylum proceedings and by a stay pending the Divisional Court's decision in Türkiye v Demir, Uckak and Sahin [2024] EWHC 2351 (Admin).

That earlier judgement established that prison conditions in Türkiye could breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights where extradited individuals were held outside Yalvaç without adequate personal space, owing to a documented failure of coordination between branches of the Turkish state. In the case of one appellant, Mr Uckak, the Divisional Court required a specific assurance covering attendance at trial by video link, or, failing that, detention with at least four square metres of space if held elsewhere.

Leave to appeal in Mr Colak's case was granted by Fordham J on the narrow question of whether the Yalvaç assurance needed to be extended in similar terms to cover his own guaranteed right to a retrial. At the substantive hearing on 11 June 2026, Mr Justice Johnson found that the existing assurances left a residual risk, since any retrial was likely to take place at a court many hours from Yalvaç, with no guarantee that Mr Colak would attend remotely or that he would receive adequate cell space if detained elsewhere for the duration of proceedings. He indicated the appeal would succeed unless Türkiye provided the equivalent of the Uckak assurance.

On 26 June 2026, the Turkish government duly provided an assurance in materially identical terms, guaranteeing that Mr Colak could appear at any retrial by video link from Yalvaç, and that he would be held in an institution with at least four square metres of personal space if detained elsewhere during the trial.

Counsel for Mr Colak, Ben Cooper KC, argued that the assurance was deficient because it offered no case-specific detail on which alternative prison might be used, raising particular concern given his client's allegations of prior ill-treatment in Iskenderun and his diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr Justice Johnson held that these points fell outside the scope of the leave granted, and that it was immaterial that no specific alternative prison had been identified, since the assurance guaranteed a minimum standard of personal space wherever Mr Colak was held.

The judge concluded that the assurance matched precisely what had been sought both by the Divisional Court in Demir and by the court in the present proceedings, and that there were no longer substantial grounds to believe Mr Colak faced a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.