Jansons v Latvia

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, the question is whether extradition would be oppressive, rather than merely unjust. Unchallenged psychiatric evidence that return would cause serious deterioration and suicide, supported by a near-fatal previous attempt, can satisfy that test even where receiving-state authorities are expected to take reasonable protective measures. Article 8 requires the suicide risk to be weighed against the seriousness of the offences, treaty obligations and protective arrangements. Striking and unusual facts may make extradition disproportionate. A sufficiently clear suicide risk may also engage Article 3, but that issue need not be decided where section 25 or Article 8 is sufficient.

The Senior District Judge ordered the claimant’s extradition to Latvia under a Category 1 European Arrest Warrant on 4 September 2008. The following day, the claimant made a near-fatal suicide attempt in prison. On appeal, new and unchallenged psychiatric evidence stated that extradition would cause his mental condition to deteriorate and that he would then commit suicide.

The defendant relied on general evidence that Latvian prison authorities could provide psychiatric treatment, supervision and protective measures. The central issues were whether extradition was incompatible with Convention rights under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, whether it would be oppressive under section 25, and whether it would breach Articles 3 or 8.

Appeal allowed. Sir Anthony May gave the judgment and Mrs Justice Dobbs agreed. The claimant was to be discharged and the extradition order quashed if that was formally necessary. A legal aid assessment was also directed.

1. Section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 required the court to ask whether extradition would be oppressive, rather than simply unjust. The evidence established a substantial and unusually serious risk of suicide. The risk was supported by the claimant’s near-fatal previous attempt and by unchallenged psychiatric evidence that he would kill himself if returned. That finding was not a criticism of the Latvian authorities or their ability to provide treatment and protection. The risk remained sufficiently great to make extradition oppressive.
2. The court identified analytical difficulties with an Article 3 claim. In Kwietniewski v Circuit Court In Tarnobrzeg Poland [2008] EWHC 3121 (Admin), the possibility that a sufficiently clear and well-established suicide risk could found an Article 3 complaint in an extradition case had been recognised. The relevant considerations included the severity of the treatment, causation, the high threshold in foreign cases, the objective basis of any fear of ill-treatment and the effectiveness of suicide-prevention mechanisms. The court did not need to determine Article 3.
3. Article 8 required a proportionality assessment. Jaso v Central Criminal Court (No 2) Madrid [2007] EWHC 2983 established that striking and unusual facts were required. The offences were not trivial, and the public interest in honouring extradition arrangements was important. Those matters were outweighed by the unqualified psychiatric evidence of suicide on return, notwithstanding the generally adequate protective arrangements expected in Latvia. Extradition would therefore infringe Article 8.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — In [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin), the appeal was allowed on the basis that extradition would be oppressive under section 25 and disproportionate under Article 8.
• Westminster City Magistrates’ Court — Senior District Judge Workman ordered extradition to Latvia on 4 September 2008.