British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Savickis v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia [2012] EWHC 157 (Admin) (31 January 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/157.html
Cite as: [2012] EWHC 157 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| ARTURS SAVICKIS | Appellant | |
| v | ||
| PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA | Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE MITTING: In this case a conviction European arrest warrant was issued by the prosecutor of the International Co-operation Division of the Prosecutor General's Office in Latvia on 18 May 2011.
- The warrant sought the extradition of the appellant to serve a sentence of 2 years and 6 months for offences of criminal damage, assault and theft committed between 2005 and 2007. The warrant was certified by SOCA on 26 September 2011. The appellant was arrested on 27 November 2011.
- There was an uncontested extradition hearing before District Judge Tubbs, who ordered the extradition of the appellant on 28 November 2011.
- In a notice of appeal the appellant challenged that decision on Article 8 grounds, that he lived in the United Kingdom with his girlfriend and does not want to go back to Latvia.
- Ms Hill, who appears for him today, says that on instructions she expressly abandons that ground of appeal and asserts but a single ground, founded upon the appeal to the Supreme Court to be heard tomorrow and the day after in Assange.
- As is by now well known, the single point upon which permission to appeal was granted was whether or not a European arrest warrant issued by a prosecutor was issued by a judicial authority, a point decided against Assange in that case by the Divisional Court.
- Ms Hill accepts that if the Supreme Court reject Assange's appeal on that point, then this appeal too must fail and should simply be listed for pronouncement in open court with neither side attending.
- Ms Hill submits that it would not have been either proper or practicable to take the point in the court below. The decision of the Divisional Court in Assange was given on 2 November 2011. This hearing took place on 28 November 2011 when the point of law which she seeks to raise was determined against her. Only subsequent to the uncontested extradition hearing was permission granted to appeal to the Supreme Court in Assange. Accordingly, and in my view correctly and unanswerably, she submits that it would have been an improper waste of public money to research the question of the status of the prosecutor of the International Cooperative Division of the Prosecution General's Office in Latvia.
- On that basis, I dismiss the appeal on all other grounds but keep it open on the single ground identified. If the Supreme Court dismiss Assange's appeal then this case will simply be listed for disposal. If the Supreme Court allow the appeal, then within seven days the appellant must seek directions as to the further conduct of the appeal.
- Thank you, Ms Hill.