Tamarevichute v The Russian Federation

Under section 81(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, general evidence of discrimination or poor human-rights conditions is insufficient. The requested person must show a reasonable chance or serious possibility of prejudice at trial, punishment, detention or restriction of liberty because of a protected characteristic.

For Article 3, general prison conditions must be accompanied by circumstances creating a real risk of treatment reaching the required severity. A sentence imposed by the requesting state is not disproportionate merely because it is more severe than the sentence ordinarily imposed in the United Kingdom.

This was an appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s order sending the appellant’s case to the Secretary of State for a decision on extradition. The Secretary of State subsequently ordered extradition, and that decision was not challenged.

The appellant, a Lithuanian national of Roma origin, was wanted by the Russian Federation for heroin offences. She argued that extradition was barred by extraneous considerations and would be incompatible with her rights under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issues were whether the evidence established a real risk of race-based prejudice or Convention-incompatible treatment, and whether the case should be remitted for reconsideration of passage of time.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the district judge had been entitled to conclude that extradition was not barred and was compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights.

2. Section 81(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 required proof of a reasonable chance or serious possibility that the appellant would be prejudiced at trial, punished, detained or restricted in her liberty by reason of race. Evidence of widespread anti-Roma discrimination was powerful but did not, without more, establish that risk for this appellant. Her previous detention, the use of the term “Gypsy Raisa”, the destruction of Roma homes in Dorozhnoe and the timing of the extradition request did not amount to unequivocal evidence that the criminal courts would act discriminatorily.

3. The court applied the approach in ZB (Russian prison conditions) v Russian Federation CG [2004] UKIAT 00239. The appellant had to establish circumstances over and above general prison conditions giving rise to a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. The evidence did not establish that Russian prison conditions had materially deteriorated, or that the appellant’s ethnicity or nationality created a sufficiently specific risk.

4. A sentence of five or seven years for serious drug offences was not wholly disproportionate merely because it exceeded the likely sentence in the United Kingdom or would be served in full. The court endorsed the principle stated in R (Ralston Wellington) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 1109 (Admin) that extradition does not ordinarily require the requesting state to adopt United Kingdom sentencing practice.

5. There was no need to consider Articles 5 and 6 separately. The findings on Article 3 were determinative. The unappealed passage-of-time issue was not before the court and was not remitted.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Wickham ordered the case to be sent to the Secretary of State on 14 November 2007. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal under section 104 of the Extradition Act 2003.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department: Extradition was ordered on 9 January 2008. That decision was not challenged.