Karahojevs, R (on the application of) v Prosecutors Generals Office Latvia

An appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act cannot succeed where its sole ground has been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court adversely to the appellant. A challenge that an extradition request was not made by a judicial authority therefore fails where the relevant Supreme Court authority establishes that the request was validly made through the Prosecutor General’s Office.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act against a District Judge’s decision directing his removal to Latvia under a European Arrest Warrant. The only issue raised was whether the request through the Prosecutor General’s Office was made by a judicial authority. The District Judge’s decision preceded the Supreme Court’s final decision on the same issue in Assange. The question was whether that subsequent authority left any merit in the appeal.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The only ground relied on was the contention that the request through the Prosecutor General’s Office was not a request by a judicial authority.
2. The District Judge had decided the issue before the Supreme Court gave its final decision in Assange. Although the District Judge had reached the conclusion ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court’s final determination removed any merit from the appellant’s challenge.
3. The appeal could not be allowed in the circumstances. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal.

• District Judge: directed the claimant’s removal to Latvia under a European Arrest Warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the claimant’s appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act.