Aleksejevs, R (on the application of) v Government of Latvia

In an extradition appeal, return to serve an imposed sentence is prima facie proportionate, even where removal separates the person from family members. Article 8 requires an assessment of proportionality on the facts. A stringent requirement that only striking and unusual circumstances can defeat extradition is not necessary where the court applies the ordinary proportionality approach. Relevant considerations include the remaining sentence, the possibility of family contact or relocation, the seriousness of the offences, and the person’s conduct.

The applicant appealed against a Westminster Magistrates’ Court order for his extradition to Latvia to serve the balance of sentences for hooliganism and driving while over the permitted alcohol limit. The District Judge rejected his account that he had left Latvia with the knowledge or permission of the probation service. Before the Administrative Court, he relied on his medical condition and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the effect of extradition on his wife and children. The issues were whether medical treatment made removal oppressive and whether extradition would be disproportionate.

1. The medical ground failed. The court was satisfied that adequate medical treatment was available in Latvia, and the applicant’s condition did not make return oppressive.

2. The court considered article 8 on the basis that the ordinary proportionality assessment should be applied. The court did not consider it necessary to await the Supreme Court’s decision on the approach associated with Norris, under which only striking and unusual facts could justify refusing extradition.

3. Where offences have been committed and sentences imposed, return to serve the sentence is prima facie appropriate and proportionate. That presumption remains subject to consideration of the particular circumstances.

4. The applicant had approximately five months and a few days left to serve. His wife and children could remain in the United Kingdom during that period or return to Latvia to join him. The separation was therefore not sufficient to outweigh the public interest in enforcing the sentences. His offending in the United Kingdom was also relevant to the proportionality assessment.

5. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extradition order dated 28 March 2012 was dismissed.