Preiss, R (On the Application Of) v Dobele District Court, Latvia

A statutory time limit for appealing an extradition order may lawfully be strict, even where extradition is said to risk breach of fundamental rights. The seriousness of the alleged consequences does not itself create a discretion to extend the time limit. Where Convention or Charter rights are engaged, other effective safeguards may remain available, including an application to the Strasbourg Court under rule 39. The assessment of risk under article 3 of the Convention or article 19(2) of the Charter is fact-specific and subject to a high threshold.

The claimant challenged an extradition order made on 15 October 2010. He issued and filed a notice of appeal on 20 October, within the statutory period, but served it on the Crown Prosecution Service on 26 October. The issues were whether service was required within seven days under section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether the alleged risk of inadequate prison nutrition and detention conditions required a discretion to extend time by reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. Section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires an extradition appeal notice to be issued and served on the requesting state within seven days. The court followed the binding majority decision in Mucelli v Government of Albania [2009] UKHL 2.
2. A strict time limit may lawfully be imposed even where the challenged decision may infringe fundamental rights. The seriousness of the possible consequences does not itself require a discretion to extend time.
3. The court assumed, without deciding, that articles 47 and 19(2) of the Charter had direct application. It held that an application to the Strasbourg Court under rule 39 could protect the claimant’s rights without unsettling the domestic procedural regime.
4. The evidence did not establish the required risk. Although Latvian prison conditions had acknowledged shortcomings, Bazjaks v Latvia concerned particular conditions in a confined and claustrophobic cell and did not establish a comparable risk for this claimant. Article 3 assessments are fact-specific and subject to a high threshold.
5. The application to certify questions concerning the Charter and section 26 was withdrawn. The court considered that the facts did not raise those questions squarely.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision in this litigation. The claimant appealed against the extradition order made on 15 October 2010; the Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.