Prison Assurances Disconnect Puts Rahman Homicide Extraditions at Risk
Canadian authorities face questions over prison condition assurances as an Aug. 21 deadline looms in the Sharif Rahman homicide extradition case.
Canadian federal authorities say they have already provided the information requested in the extradition proceedings for three men accused in the 2023 killing of Owen Sound restaurateur Sharif Rahman. But with an August 21 deadline set by a Scottish judge—and a clear order to identify the prison or prisons where the men would be held—there is still no public confirmation that Canada has met that requirement, raising the risk the extradition could fail.
Robert Evans Jr. faces a manslaughter charge in Canada. His father, Robert Busby Evans, and uncle, Barry Evans, each face a charge of accessory after the fact. The three UK residents are currently being held in Scotland.
Their defence has argued against extradition partly on the grounds that Canadian prison conditions are so poor that returning them would violate their human rights.
Why Prison Assurances Matter in Extradition
Under UK law, a court can refuse extradition if it finds that prison conditions in the requesting country would violate the European Convention on Human Rights; specifically Article 3, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
Because the claim hinges on conditions in specific institutions, the Scottish court has repeatedly asked Canada to identify exactly where the men would be held before trial and, if convicted, after sentencing, so that those specific facilities’ conditions can be assessed.
In Canada, the Department of Justice’s International Assistance Group leads extradition requests, coordinating with the relevant province and, where applicable, Correctional Service Canada (CSC).
And in Ontario, the Ministry of the Solicitor General oversees provincial facilities for remand and sentences under two years; CSC is responsible for federal penitentiaries where longer sentences are served.
Timeline of unanswered requests and court directions
May 22, 2025 (hearing): At a third preliminary hearing in Edinburgh, defence arguments focused on whether the Canadian accessory charges align with Scottish law. The defence also raised “poor” Canadian prison conditions as a potential human‑rights barrier to extradition. The court set a further preliminary hearing for June 19.
June 19, 2025 (hearing; reported June 22): The procurator fiscal (Crown) told the court that “assurances have been sought,” but Canadian authorities had not confirmed where the men would be held if extradited. The defence reiterated it wanted location details for both pre‑trial remand and any post‑conviction sentence.
July 31, 2025 (hearing): Sheriff Julius Komorowski described the partial assurances from Canada as “not satisfactory.” The court heard Canada had not identified any specific facilities and was instead preparing a general report on all Canadian prisons. The Sheriff ordered Canada to provide the required location‑specific assurances and a related conditions report by August 21.
Rahman Homicide Case: Canada Given August Deadline to Address Prison Conditions in Extradition Case
Without those specific assurances, the extradition could be delayed, or even fail entirely, on procedural grounds.
August 6, 2025 (provincial statement to OSC): In an exclusive statement to The Owen Sound Current, Ontario’s Ministry of the Solicitor General said it “does not disclose the current or potential location of individual inmates for security reasons.”
We followed up the same day to ask whether that policy extends to withholding information from a foreign court in an extradition case—given the Sheriff has specifically requested potential locations—and whether the ministry’s position applied only to media or also to Scottish authorities.
August 7, 2025 (provincial reply): The ministry responded, “As noted previously, the ministry is not able to provide any further information given that the court proceeding is ongoing,” without addressing whether the court itself would receive the location information.
August 9, 2025 (federal statement): Department of Justice spokesperson Katelyn Duff told The Owen Sound Current:
“Canada is working closely with Scottish authorities and has provided the requested information. To our knowledge, the judge requested further information on federal correctional facilities, not previously covered by the first request, to finalize his decision.
As you may know, sentences of more than two years are generally served in federal correctional institutions, while shorter sentences are served in provincial correctional facilities.”
However, the Sheriff did not ask for “further information” on federal facilities; he ordered Canada to provide the names and condition reports for specific facility or facilities—details the court has been seeking since the spring.
The Crown stated in court on July 31 that while partial assurances have been made by the Canadian authorities, they could not give an assurance of which prison the men may be detained in pre-trial or if sentenced in Canada. The Crown’s understanding was that Canadian authorities planned to submit a report on Canadian prison conditions in general.
“There is a real risk or possibility they could be sent to any federal prison then,” Sheriff Komorowski noted.
He stated his concerns with the open timeline, given that the defendants are in custody in Scotland already, and that it is in the best interest of all parties to see the case move forward expeditiously. He ordered that all information and assurances regarding prison conditions must be received from the Canadian authorities by August 21.
Possible Policy Conflict
Ontario’s position that it does not disclose “the current or potential location of individual inmates” may be colliding with the Scottish court’s requirement for location-specific assurances. This was the core of our August 6 follow-up question, which the ministry did not answer in its August 7 reply.
If Ontario’s policy extends to the Scottish court itself, it could directly conflict with the Sheriff’s order.
Requests for clarification unanswered
The Owen Sound Current has asked the Department of Justice whether Canada has now identified the specific facilities for both pre‑trial and post‑sentencing detention, and if not, whether it will do so by the August 21 deadline.
We also requested a copy of the original Scottish court request sent to Canada to determine whether a miscommunication is at the root of the problem.
As of publication, no response has been provided.
What’s at Stake
A court observer who has attended the Edinburgh hearings questioned why Canadian authorities would drag their feet over providing this critical information.
If the Scottish court does not receive the exact information it ordered, the extradition could be refused on procedural or human-rights grounds. That could force Canadian authorities to restart the process or abandon the request, leaving the charges untested in a Canadian court and prolonging the two-year wait for answers for Rahman’s family and community.
Because Canada initiated the extradition request, it is responsible under treaty obligations for providing the assurances the Scottish court has said it requires to proceed. Until there is confirmation that those assurances have been delivered, the outcome of the August 21 hearing remains uncertain.
The Owen Sound Current will continue to follow developments in this case.
Related:
Miranda, do we have any idea of what happens if the extradition does not go through? What is likely the next step? Is there any possibility there will no further legal action?
It seems that the sticking point resides in the question of just which Provincial facility the accused will occupy during the trial and which system, Provincial or Federal, that the acccused will be held in once sentenced. I fail to see how this could be so complex as to delay the administration of justice for over a year. If both parties are operating in good faith .... or perhaps that is the problem.
As well I have been curious as to how the Scottish Courts came to believe that Canadian jails possibly ignore the human rights of prisoners. The Canadian court is being asked to prove that the various jails do not abuse prisoners. Specifically I would like to know what actual objections to providing the asked for information to Scotland.
I am somewhat aware of what the system is like - both Federal and Provincial and although there certainly is enough unpleasant information to be had of the Provincial system including prisoners working for candy bars and canned pop for a private corporation (with the suggestion that Parole would not be forthcoming if the prisoner refuses to work in those conditions. Or perhaps the time spent in lock down because of under staffing for all holidays and various other circumstances ... but then I could say a lot about how hard the staff works to ensure the best possible situation (my reference is Vanier, a prison for women in Ontario).
I guess that I would want to know just what human rights violations that Canada is being accused of.