Kiigicevs v Prosecutor General Office Latvia

For the purposes of section 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003, a prosecutor issuing a European Arrest Warrant may constitute a judicial authority. An extradition appeal based on Article 3 risk requires sufficiently cogent evidence that the requested person faces a real safety risk on return and that appropriate protective arrangements will not be made. In the absence of such evidence, return does not breach Article 3.

The appellant appealed against the decision of Riddle DJ on 11 June 2012 concerning a European Arrest Warrant issued by Latvia in relation to potential proceedings for rape and theft.

He argued that the issuing prosecutor was not a judicial authority for the purposes of section 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003. He also alleged that return would breach Article 3 because he feared drug dealers to whom he owed money. The appeal raised whether either ground justified setting aside the extradition decision.

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. Riddle DJ had correctly held that the prosecutor who issued the European Arrest Warrant was a judicial authority within section 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003. The Supreme Court’s decision in Assange made clear that the appellant’s contrary argument could not succeed.
3. The Article 3 argument also failed. The appellant relied on his evidence that he had left Latvia because he feared persons to whom he owed money for drugs. The evidence did not include clear and cogent independent evidence of the alleged threats, injuries or medical treatment.
4. More importantly, there was no evidence to support the conclusion that appropriate arrangements for the appellant’s safety would not be made if he informed the Latvian authorities of the danger. In those circumstances, there was no breach of Article 3 on return.
5. The decision below therefore stood and the appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 19 July 2012, Mr Justice Saunders dismissed the appeal from the decision of Riddle DJ dated 11 June 2012.