Ivanovs v Prosecutor General Office, Republic of Latvia

An extradition appeal will not succeed where the appellant’s account of political persecution is unsupported, has been rejected by the extradition judge, and lacks corroborating expert or other evidence. A late application to adjourn will be refused where the appellant has had ample time to prepare and the application represents an attempt to delay or avoid return. A claimed risk to life under Article 2 requires sufficient evidence that the requested state would be unable or unwilling to provide protection.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s decision directing his extradition to Latvia for trial for supplying MDMA to an undercover police officer.

Before the District Judge, he relied on section 13, contending that the prosecution was politically motivated because of his activities concerning the rights of Russians in Latvia. He later sought an adjournment to obtain further material concerning an alleged risk of being killed if returned, including a 2009 knife attack and alleged prison threats. The central issues were whether the appeal should be adjourned and whether the new allegations justified overturning the extradition decision.

1. The application to adjourn was refused. The appellant had had ample time to prepare, had not been misled about the hearing date, and was no longer represented only after previously having solicitors with extradition experience. The application was viewed as an attempt to avoid return to Latvia.

2. The political-persecution case had been rejected by the District Judge for good reason. The appellant’s evidence was not accepted and was unsupported by Professor Bowring’s expert evidence. There was no sufficient basis for treating the prosecution as politically motivated within section 13 of the Extradition Act 2003.

3. The alleged risk to life engaged Article 2 in principle, but the material before the court was insufficient. There was no evidence that the Latvian authorities would not protect the appellant, nor evidence supporting the allegations of general corruption, persecution or a likely fatal attack.

4. The appellant was an entirely unreliable witness. The alleged offence was straightforward and serious, and there was no reason to overturn the District Judge’s decision. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court refused an adjournment and dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s extradition decision.
• District Judge: On 20 February 2011, directed the appellant’s extradition to Latvia to face trial for supplying MDMA to an undercover police officer.