Held, the Divisional Court ordered the extradition of the Respondent to India to be held in the Tihar prisons in Delhi for allegedly acting as a conduit between bookmakers who wanted to fix cricket matches. This reversed the decision of the District Judge on the grounds that the assurances given by the Government of India were sufficient to assure there would be no impermissible treatment under ECHR, art 3. This was because the Court held that, though it is agreed that the prisons are overcrowded, the assurance provided as to the cells available for the Respondent was accepted. Similarly, despite the argument that there have been outbreaks of intra-prisoner violence which are being investigated by the Courts in Delhi, an assurance was given that the Respondent would not be held in a high security ward, which is where the violence had been identified. Therefore, the Court concluded that the assurances and information available are sufficient to show there will be no real risk that the Respondent would be subjected to impermissible treatment in Tihar prisons.
Mark Summers QC and Aaron Watkins were involved in this case.