Kurmis v Tukums District Court Latvia

In an extradition appeal, delay will not make return oppressive merely because the alleged offences are old. The appellant must show circumstances capable of demonstrating oppression or a real risk that the trial will be unfair. Moving to the United Kingdom, establishing a family and obtaining employment ordinarily amount to hardship, not oppression. A challenge based on trial as an adult cannot succeed under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A European arrest warrant is sufficient where it clearly identifies and sets out the alleged offences.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Riddle’s decision of 19 November ordering his return to Latvia to stand trial for 20 alleged offences of robbery, violence, theft and assault committed in 2005, when he was aged 17.

He argued that the warrant did not properly specify the offences, that return would be unjust or oppressive because of the passage of time, and that trial as an adult would breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 was not relied upon. The appeal also raised information suggesting that the appellant may have known that he was not to leave Latvia, although that information had not been before the District Judge.

1. Warrant. The warrant properly identified the alleged offences. Its division under three sub-headings reflected the different nature of the offences and did not create any uncertainty. It clearly set out all 20 offences.
2. Article 3. The argument that trying the appellant as an adult would breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was unarguable. The fact that he was under 18 when the alleged offences were committed did not establish a breach of that article.
3. Delay and oppression. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that the passage of time did not make return unjust or oppressive. There was no evidence that the Latvian authorities had failed to act diligently or that the passage of time would make the trial unfair. The appellant’s move to the United Kingdom, the birth of his child and his employment amounted, at most, to hardship. Those matters did not justify refusing extradition.
4. The possible question whether the appellant had been a fugitive from justice did not need to be resolved. Whether or not he was a fugitive, the District Judge’s conclusion was correct. The further information was therefore immaterial to the outcome.
5. The appeal was dismissed. The dismissal order was stayed for 14 days to permit written submissions and instructions. If no material requiring a further hearing was identified, the order would take effect.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the decision of District Judge Riddle dated 19 November ordering the appellant’s return to Latvia. The appeal was dismissed.