Davida v Ventspils Court Latvia

In an extradition appeal, the court cannot determine whether the requested person committed the alleged offences. It must examine the warrant and decide whether the offences are properly described and constitute extradition offences. Delay will justify refusal only where the passage of time makes surrender unjust or oppressive. Unjustness concerns an inability to contest the charges. Oppression requires more than the ordinary hardship inevitably caused by extradition and presents a high threshold.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Coleman’s decision of 21 December 2012 ordering her return to Latvia to face prosecution for obtaining a consumption loan by deception and stealing goods from her workplace. She denied both allegations and relied principally on delay, the age of the alleged offences, and the personal and economic consequences of return. The central issues were whether the warrant disclosed extradition offences and whether returning her would be unjust or oppressive.

1. Nature of the extradition inquiry. The court could not determine whether the appellant was guilty. The district judge and the appellate court were confined to examining the warrant and deciding whether the alleged offences were appropriately described and constituted extradition offences. The warrant complied with the technical requirements.
2. Delay. The appellant had been arrested approximately four or five years after the alleged offences. There was no evidence establishing that the delay was unreasonable or that the Latvian authorities had acted unreasonably. The court did not know when the allegations had been made or when the prosecuting authorities had obtained sufficient material to justify prosecution.
3. Unjust or oppressive return. Even if delay had been established, the appellant had to show that return would be unjust or oppressive. Unjustness concerned an inability to contest the charges, which was not alleged. Oppression was a high threshold and required more than ordinary hardship, since hardship inevitably resulted from extradition.
4. The loss of the appellant’s employment and income in the United Kingdom, together with her asserted difficulty finding work in Latvia and the effect on her family circumstances, did not establish oppression. The appeal was dismissed. Existing conditional bail was continued until further notification requiring attendance for return to Latvia.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Collins dismissed the appeal against the order for return to Latvia and continued the appellant’s conditional bail.
• District Judge: District Judge Coleman ordered the appellant’s return to Latvia on 21 December 2012.