Sirvelis v HM Prison Brixton

[2005] EWHC 2611 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2005] EWHC 2611 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
14 October 2005
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Public law Extradition and surrender
Keywords
extradition delay unjust or oppressive return section 11(3)(b) credibility family hardship European Convention on Human Rights Article 8
Outcome
application refused
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

For the statutory bar based on delay, unjust principally concerns prejudice to the fairness of the trial, while oppressive concerns hardship caused by changes in the accused’s circumstances. The concepts overlap and together address whether return would be fair. The provision is not confined to rare or exceptional cases. Once injustice or oppression is established, discharge follows as of right.

Factual background

The claimant challenged his detention following committal by Bow Street Magistrates’ Court to await a decision on extradition to Lithuania. He relied on the passage of time since the alleged offences, his claimed fear of the Lithuanian mafia, hardship to his family, and his settled life in the United Kingdom.

The central issue was whether return would be unjust or oppressive under section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989, or contrary to articles 2, 3 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Held

  1. Application refused. The claimant had not established that return to Lithuania would be unjust or oppressive under section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989.
  2. Applying Kakis v Government of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779, unjust principally concerns prejudice to the conduct of the trial, while oppressive concerns hardship arising from changes in the accused’s circumstances. The concepts overlap.
  3. The provision is not restricted to rare or exceptional cases. Once injustice or oppression is established, discharge follows as of right.
  4. The court was entitled to assess the claimant’s credibility and the inherent likelihood of his account. It rejected his asserted business visa and mafia-related risk.
  5. The Lithuanian authorities had actively sought him after his failure to attend court. The passage of time was not attributable to culpable delay by those authorities, and the hardship to the claimant’s family did not cross the threshold of oppression.
  6. The arguments under articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention also failed, having regard to the balancing considerations under article 8(2) and the threshold identified in Razgar.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.