Kudzevica v Riga Circuit Court Latvia

In extradition proceedings, prison conditions in a Convention category 1 state cannot in principle establish a breach of Articles 2 or 3, subject only to wholly extraordinary circumstances such as a fundamental collapse of the requesting state’s constitutional order. Current evidence of a real risk and available protective measures may nevertheless be considered. Under Article 8, extradition carries a compelling public interest. Family consequences must be exceptionally serious before they outweigh that interest, although the offence’s gravity and the effect on close family members may be considered.

The appellant appealed under section 26(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made by the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The order followed a European arrest warrant issued by the Riga Circuit Court, Latvia, concerning an eight-year sentence for drug offences.

She challenged the decision on section 4 timing, Article 3 prison conditions and risk of attack, and Article 8 family life arising from separation from her young daughter. The central issues were whether the section 4 decision could be reopened and whether extradition would be unlawful or disproportionate.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Section 4. The Divisional Court’s decision in Stunjuk v The Circuit Court in Catavici had confirmed that a district judge had no power to reopen a section 4 issue after the initial hearing. The appellant therefore did not pursue that ground.
2. Article 3. Following the analysis in Dabkowski v The District Court in Gorzow [2010] EWHC 1712 (Admin) and Klimas v Prosecutor General’s Office of Lithuania [2010] EWHC 2076 (Admin), and agreeing with their analysis of KRS v The United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1781, extradition to a Convention category 1 state could not in principle put the United Kingdom in breach of Articles 2 or 3 because of prison conditions. The exception was limited to wholly extraordinary circumstances in which the requesting state’s constitutional order had been upset, such as by military coup or violent revolution.
3. In any event, the evidence showed that protective measures were available for vulnerable prisoners in Latvia. The court agreed with the district judge that the appellant had not established a present real risk of ill-treatment. The Article 3 ground therefore failed.
4. Article 8. The court applied the approach in Norris v The Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] 2 A.C. Extradition serves a compelling public interest in preventing disorder and crime. Its effect on family life is inherent in the process, so the consequences must be exceptionally serious before they outweigh that interest. The gravity of the offence and the impact on close family members may be considered.
5. The appellant’s circumstances did not approach the unusually and exceptionally compelling circumstances required by that approach. The extradition order could not properly be set aside.

1. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: extradition order made on 11 August 2010.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.