Keiss v Limbazi District Court of the Republic of Latvia

On an extradition appeal, the High Court will not overturn a district judge’s factual findings without a proper basis in law or evidence. Medical evidence concerning prison conditions must be assessed in the light of the receiving state’s current facilities and any necessary safeguards. Where extradition is ordered despite medical concerns, relevant treatment information and doctors’ recommendations should accompany the person and be conveyed to the requesting authorities. An adjournment to obtain representation may properly be refused where the court has the relevant materials and concludes that an adjournment is unnecessary in the interests of justice.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Riddle’s order of 1 November 2011 that he be extradited to Latvia to face trial for an alleged burglary and theft committed in 2005. He relied on concerns about medical treatment in Latvian prisons and an alleged risk of retaliation because he had worked as an informant against organised criminals. He also alleged that a confession had been obtained by violence. The appellant sought an adjournment to obtain new legal representation.

The central issues were whether the district judge had erred in accepting the evidence and whether the evidence established a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 or a serious medical danger on return.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The High Court had no basis to interfere with the district judge’s findings on the appellant’s alleged informant status or risk of retaliation. The appellant had provided no new material showing that those findings were wrong in law or fact.
2. The alleged risk arising from the appellant’s work as an informant was not established. The district judge had assessed the appellant as a witness and had given reasons for rejecting his evidence. Those findings were accepted.
3. The medical evidence showed serious deficiencies in the Latvian prison system, but also evidence of improvement, including access to doctors, free medication and medical examination. The evidence did not establish that the appellant would be unable to receive treatment necessary to protect his health.
4. As a necessary safeguard, reports from the doctors treating the appellant in the United Kingdom, together with details of his medication, the reasons for it and recommended protective measures, were to travel with him and be forwarded to the Latvian authorities.
5. The court refused an adjournment to enable the appellant to instruct new solicitors. Having reviewed the material relied on, the grounds of appeal and the earlier skeleton argument, the court was satisfied that an adjournment was unnecessary in the interests of justice.

• Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Riddle ordered the appellant’s extradition to Latvia on 1 November 2011.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that order was dismissed.