Grozovs v Kraslava District Court

Evidence sought to be introduced on an extradition appeal is admissible only where it was unavailable at the extradition hearing. Evidence is unavailable if it did not then exist, or was not at the party’s disposal and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. Evidence obtainable shortly after the hearing may therefore be excluded. A section 25 oppression argument based on medical condition also requires sufficiently cogent evidence connecting the condition with the anticipated prison conditions. Speculative possibilities and unbridged evidential gaps do not establish the statutory bar.

A Latvian court issued a European arrest warrant alleging theft of railway rails and intentional damage. Following an uncontested extradition hearing, the Deputy Senior District Judge ordered extradition.

On appeal, the claimant relied on a medical card obtained after the hearing and reports concerning tuberculosis risks and prison conditions in Latvia. He argued that extradition would be oppressive because of his physical condition, relying on section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003. The central issues were whether the further evidence was admissible and, if admitted, whether it established the statutory bar.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claimant’s further evidence was not admitted, and the section 25 bar was not established.
2. Evidence is “not available at the extradition hearing” only if it did not exist then, or was not at the party’s disposal and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. The medical card was obtainable with reasonable diligence. Its production within at most five days of the hearing demonstrated that it had been available in the relevant sense. The claimant had also failed to raise the medical argument at the hearing, when the evidence could have been tested and the Latvian authorities could have responded. ([2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), para 32, applied.)
3. Alternatively, even if the evidence had been admitted, it would not have established oppression under section 25. The material showed inactive tuberculosis which might be exacerbated or become active in poor prison conditions. However, the argument depended on several speculative steps, and the claimant had not supplied evidence bridging the necessary gaps between his condition, the actual conditions he would face, and oppressive extradition.
4. The extradition order therefore stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed. The court refused to admit the further evidence and held, alternatively, that the section 25 bar was not made out.
• Extradition hearing: On 25 November 2011, Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham ordered extradition. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment.