Sorokins v Kraslava Regional Court of First Instance (Latvia)

Fresh evidence on an extradition appeal must satisfy a strict threshold: it must have been unavailable at the extradition hearing and sufficiently decisive that it would have altered the outcome. Poor prison conditions do not by themselves establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The assessment must consider whether shortcomings are systemic or sporadic, together with state improvement efforts, independent monitoring, complaint mechanisms and Convention obligations. A case involving extreme, systemic failures elsewhere may therefore provide limited assistance where those features are absent.

The claimant was wanted by Latvia under a European Arrest Warrant to face trial for seven offences. Latvia was a category 1 territory under the Extradition Act 2003. The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition on 17 March 2010.

On appeal, the claimant relied solely on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also sought to adduce a United States State Department report concerning Latvian prison conditions as fresh evidence under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003. The issues were whether the report was admissible and whether it demonstrated a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Hooper agreed with the judgment of Mr Justice Kenneth Parker.

2. Under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, evidence not available at the extradition hearing means evidence which either did not then exist, or was not at the party’s disposal and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. The threshold is high. The fresh evidence must be decisive, in the sense that it would have led the extradition judge to decide the relevant question differently.

3. The court doubted whether the report satisfied the due-diligence requirement because the claimant did not explain when it was obtained or why it could not have been obtained earlier. It nevertheless considered the material de bene esse.

4. The report showed poor and overcrowded prisons and criticisms concerning health treatment, prisoner security, diet, sanitation and exercise. Those matters raised concern, but poor conditions alone did not establish a breach of Article 3, whose threshold remained high.

5. The evidence did not show that Latvian prisons systematically fell below Convention standards. It indicated sporadic failures, governmental efforts to improve facilities, independent monitoring, an ombudsman able to investigate complaints, and Latvia’s obligations as a Council of Europe member bound by the Convention. The claimant therefore failed to prove a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

6. Orkovski v Poland was distinguished because it concerned the extreme end of the spectrum, including recognised systemic failure and findings that prison conditions fell below domestic constitutional standards.

1. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: extradition ordered on 17 March 2010.

2. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal dismissed; the fresh material did not establish a real risk contrary to Article 3.