QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
|RIGA CITY SUBURB COURT (LATVIA)||Respondent|
WordWave International Ltd (a Merrill Corporation Company)
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel: 020 7421 4043 Fax: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr T Cadman (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
i. "In assessing whether there may be a breach of Article 3, the approach which must be applied has been considered in a number of cases. A very strong case must be established to show that there would be a real risk that the requested person would be subjected to treatment which would breach his or her rights in that he or she would suffer torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Latvia, in common with all states which can use the EAW procedure, is a signatory to the ECHR and a member of the Council of Europe. Accordingly, it would take very strong and cogent evidence to show that Latvia or any requesting state within the EU was not willing or able to fulfil; its obligations under the Conventions. A number of cases have referred to a presumption that states will comply with their Convention obligations which will have to be overcome by evidence in a particular case. In one of the most recent cases, Aleksynas & Others v Lithuania  EWHC 437 (Admin), Jay J, who was sitting with Moses LJ, said in paragraph 98:
ii. "Perhaps the better way of expressing the matter is that the Appellants face the legal burden of proving that the requesting state would not fulfil its obligations under the Convention, and that the threshold is a relatively high one ('strong grounds for believing')"."
i. "It is likely that the public interest in extradition will outweigh the article 8 rights of the family unless the consequences of the interference with family life will be exceptionally severe."
i. "(1) If the judge is required to proceed under this section (by virtue of section 11), the judge must decide both of the following questions in respect of the extradition of the person ("D") -
(b) whether the extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998;
(c) whether the extradition would be disproportionate.
i. (2) In deciding whether the extradition would be disproportionate, the judge must take into account the specified matters relating to proportionality (so far as the judge thinks it appropriate to do so); but the judge must not take any other matters into account.
ii. (3) These are the specified matters relating to proportionality -
(a) the seriousness of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence;
(b) the likely penalty that would be imposed if D was found guilty of the extradition offence;
(c) the possibility of the relevant foreign authorities taking measures that would be less coercive than the extradition of D.
iii. (4) The judge must order D's discharge if the judge makes one or both of these decisions -
(a) that the extradition would not be compatible with the Convention rights;
(b) that the extradition would be disproportionate.
iv. (5) The judge must order D to be extradited to the category 1 territory in which the warrant was issued if the judge makes both of these decisions -
(a) that the extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights;
(b) that the extradition would not be disproportionate.
v. (6) If the judge makes an order under subsection (5) he must remand the person in custody or on bail to wait for extradition to the category 1 territory.
vi. (7) If the person is remanded in custody, the appropriate judge may later grant bail.
vii. (8) In this section "relevant foreign authorities" means the authorities in the territory to which D would be extradited if the extradition went ahead."