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 >> Gromovs v Prosecutor General's Office of Republic of Latvia [2014] EWHC 4155 (Admin) (10 November 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4155.html
Cite as: [2014] EWHC 4155 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| JURGIS GROMOVS | Appellant | |
| v | ||
| PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE OF 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 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Miss Catherine Brown (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge McPhee that the appellant should be extradited to Latvia in order to face a charge of a serious assault, which in this country would be an offence of causing actual bodily harm. It has been said that the expected sentence were he to be convicted would be up to 3 years.
- The basis for the appeal, and of the challenge raised before the district judge, was that it would be, as a result of his mental condition, unjust or oppressive to extradite him. What is relied on is that it would be oppressive, and the reason for that is based upon his being a risk of suicide.
- There was produced before the district judge a report from an eminent psychiatrist who has given evidence in a number of cases, Seena Fazel. The appellant was interviewed at some length. His history was elicited, and it is plain that he has a very bad record, largely offences of violence, and he has spent a lot of his life in prison in Latvia. He has also on numerous occasions been treated in prison because he has self-harmed, and indeed it seems has attempted suicide, and that treatment and care has certainly ensured so far that he has not committed suicide.
- As the psychiatric report indicates, he described to her an extensive prison and psychiatric history with multiple periods of in-patient hospitalisation with various different sorts of treatment. The psychiatrist's view was that he did not have a severe mental illness but he suffered from (if that is the right way of putting it) what is called an associative disorder. It is said that the risk of suicide if he was not extradited was, as it is put, not increased, because there is a protective factor from his family. But if a decision was made to extradite him then the risk of suicide was very high, but was not secondary to any psychiatric illness and it is really that he has said that rather than return to Latvia he would prefer to kill himself. He made impulsive decisions in the past, her reduced ability as a result to deal with personal setbacks, and the psychiatrist recommended that, were he to be extradited, there should be a suicide management plan put in place.
- It is not a situation where he is deliberately for no good reason using risk of suicide as a basis for avoiding extradition, but that results from his attitude of mind which is not to be regarded as a psychiatric illness as such, certainly not as a treatable psychiatric illness, but results from his personality disorder. The question that I have to consider is whether that means that it would be indeed oppressive to return him to Latvia.
- Reliance was placed before the district judge, and has been relied on before me, upon the CPT reports in relation to prison conditions in Latvia. The generality of prison conditions there has recently been considered by the Divisional Court, of which I was a member, in Brazuks & Ors v Prosecutor General's Office, Republic of Latvia [2014] EWHC 1021 (Admin). In that case, after considering all the relevant and up-to-date reports, the court was satisfied that there was no real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in relation to the conditions in prisons in Latvia.
- However, that is not a matter which is contested by Miss Herbert. What she submits is that there is not, largely as a result of financial constraints which have resulted in low staffing levels in prisons, the ability to give the necessary care. It is to be noted that he has had that care in the past when he has been in prison in Latvia. So far as psychiatric care is concerned, true there was concern because the number of beds available in the prison in which that care could be made available has been seriously reduced. In fact, it is psychiatric patients who have the best chance of being properly cared for there. The Latvian authorities have given reassurances that the necessary care will be available, and although there are concerns, as I say, which have been relatively recently raised due largely to staffing levels, I have no reason to believe that the Latvian authorities will not comply with what they say they are prepared to do.
- The other aspect which has given rise to concern in the past is that self-harm has been treated as a punishable offence rather than an indication of some mental problem. That was the case certainly as recently as 2011 when the CPT report was made. However, assurances have been given by the Latvian authorities that that is not what will happen in relation certainly to this appellant, but more generally. Miss Herbert submits that the equivalent, as it were, of the Prison Rules there do indicate that self-harm can be treated as something which is punishable. That may be so, but I have no reason to disbelieve the assertions made by the authorities in this particular case that so far as the appellant is concerned that will not happen.
- True, the authorities have not accepted that he has a mental disorder. In one sense he does not: he has no psychiatric illness; that is confirmed by Dr Fazel. However, he has a personality condition which has led to his threats of suicide, and certainly self-harm and possibly attempts at suicide as well. It is clear from her report that he needs careful observation and consideration must be given to ensuring that he does not indeed succeed in committing suicide.
- So far as this court is concerned, and indeed the district court, the authorities are clear that threats of suicide will not result in a decision that extradition should not take place unless the chances that the individual will commit suicide are utterly overwhelming. In one case the court went to the extent of saying that it was certain that suicide would take place. That seems to me to be something which no court could properly decide. But as I say, it has to be an overwhelming case and the court has to be satisfied that nothing could be done in order to avoid that result.
- It is usual, and indeed essential, that where there are problems such as are raised in this case the receiving state's authorities in any given case must be given full information so that the necessary care can be given. So in this case, it will be essential that the psychiatric report and any other reports there may be from this country which are material should accompany the appellant when he is extradited to Latvia so that the Latvian authorities are given the fullest information to enable them to deal with his situation.
- The district judge's judgment was lengthy and careful, and despite the criticisms that have been made by Miss Herbert, I am entirely satisfied that he properly had regard to all relevant considerations. His conclusion was one which, in my judgment, was entirely correct, and albeit there was a substantial risk of suicide it was a risk that could be managed and would be managed in Latvia on the material that was before the court.
- In those circumstances, this appeal will be dismissed.
- MISS BROWN: My Lord, there was simply one matter. At the outset, I believe you stated the sentence was between 5 and 8 years. On the warrant it says a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years.
- MR JUSTICE COLLINS: 3 was it? I am sorry.
- MISS HERBERT: Yes. I think the maximum sentence is 3 years.
- MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I am sorry. I will correct that on the transcript.
- MISS HERBERT: The only other thing was the district judge found it was more equivalent to actual bodily harm rather than grievous bodily harm.
- MR JUSTICE COLLINS: All right. Again, I will make that clear.
- MISS HERBERT: I am grateful.