Sietens v Cesis District Court, Republic of Latvia

For extradition to a Category 1 territory to be refused on prison-condition grounds under Article 3, the evidence must establish a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment for the requested person. General evidence of poor or sporadically defective conditions is insufficient where the territory remains subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, permits independent monitoring, operates complaint mechanisms and is taking steps to improve conditions. A Divisional Court will ordinarily follow an earlier Divisional Court decision on materially identical evidence as a matter of judicial comity unless persuaded that it was wrong. Historic findings concerning particular prison conditions do not necessarily establish a current systemic risk.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Evans’s order dated 4 November 2010 directing his extradition to Latvia under two European Arrest Warrants. Before the District Judge, he relied on alleged breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and oppression arising from his mental condition. The Article 8 ground was not pursued on appeal. The mental-health and police-treatment aspects of the Article 3 challenge depended principally on evidence which the District Judge rejected.

The remaining issue concerned objective reports about prison conditions in Latvia, including reports considered in Sorokins v Kraslava Regional Court of First Instance [2010] EWHC 1962 (Admin). The central question was whether the material established a real risk that the appellant would suffer inhuman or degrading treatment if extradited.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the order for extradition.
2. The mental-condition ground was hopeless. The District Judge had heard the appellant give evidence, found him wholly unconvincing, and there was no medical evidence before either the District Judge or the appellate court capable of supporting the contention that his mental state removed his capacity to resist suicide.
3. The allegation that the appellant would be ill-treated by police during pre-trial detention also failed. It depended on his rejected account of earlier detention, and the respondent’s contrary material had been before the District Judge.
4. The objective prison-conditions ground was governed by the approach adopted in Sorokins v Kraslava Regional Court of First Instance [2010] EWHC 1962 (Admin). Although that decision was not binding, the court would follow it as a matter of judicial comity unless persuaded that it was wrong. The reports showed sporadic failures to meet Article 3 standards, but also governmental efforts to improve prison conditions, independent monitoring, an ombudsman and mechanisms for investigating complaints.
5. The additional Latvian government material supported the conclusion that conditions were being improved. The seriousness of the appellant’s alleged offences did not materially distinguish the case from Sorokins. The decision in Bazjaks v Latvia (App No 71572/01) concerned historic conditions in a particular prison in 2001 and 2002 and did not establish a current systemic risk.
6. Latvia’s constitutional order had not broken down so as to render Article 3 protection ineffective. Latvia’s status as a Category 1 territory, its Convention obligations and the availability of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights were relevant to that conclusion.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal dismissed and the extradition order upheld.
• District Court: District Judge Evans ordered extradition on 4 November 2010 following the extradition hearing on 11 October 2010.