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 >> Kiigicevs v Prosecutor General Office Latvia [2012] EWHC 2806 (Admin) (19 July 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2806.html
Cite as: [2012] EWHC 2806 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| KIIGICEVS | Appellant | |
| v | ||
| PROSECUTOR GENERAL OFFICE LATVIA | Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms H Pye (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service Extradition) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: This appellant is sought pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued on 27 February 2012 in order to face potential criminal proceedings in relation to offences of rape and offences of theft.
- Riddle DJ heard the application on 11 June 2012. There were two arguments that he had to consider; first of all, whether the prosecutor who issued the European Arrest Warrant was a judicial authority as required by section 2 sub-section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Riddle DJ found that he was.
- At that time, the court was still awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assange. By reference to that judgment in the Supreme Court, it is clear that the prosecutor who issued the European Arrest Warrant would be a judicial authority within the terms of the judgment by the Supreme Court. Therefore, that argument is bound to fail on appeal.
- The second point taken before the Senior District Judge was there was a breach of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act. The basis for that was that the appellant said that he owed money to drug dealers. He gave evidence before Riddle DJ. He said there that he left Latvia because he was in fear for his safety, that he owed money for people for drugs, that those people would get him if he returned to Latvia, and that he had been in prison for a few days during the original investigation and during that time, he learned that the main man to whom he owed money was aware of his presence there.
- The Senior District Judge rejected the argument. He did so on several grounds. First of all, he concluded that there was no independent evidence about the threats to him in Latvia, no clear and cogent independent evidence, no evidence of any injuries or evidence of having to go to hospital.
- More importantly, Riddle DJ decided that there was simply no evidence to believe that a proper arrangement for his safety would not be made if he were to advise the authorities in Latvia that he was in danger. There is no reason to suppose, in cases such as this, that the relevant contracting state would not themselves take care to preserve the safety of the appellant. In those circumstances, there is no breach of Article 3 by sending him back.
- In all the circumstances, this appeal must fail and it does so. The appeal is dismissed.
- MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: Anything else that I need to say or do?
- MS PYE: Nothing, my Lord. Thank you.
- MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: Thank you.