Brazuks & Ors v Prosecutor General's Office, Republic of Latvia

In extradition proceedings, a requested person alleging that prison conditions in another Convention state will breach Article 3 bears the legal burden of proving a real risk of prohibited treatment. The threshold is high and ordinarily requires strong, cogent evidence of systemic failure, an unremedied defect identified by the CPT, or exceptional individual circumstances. The absence of an ECtHR pilot judgment is not conclusive, but makes the claim difficult. Current evidence and the requesting state’s response are essential. Hardship to a child and access to better medical treatment in the United Kingdom do not ordinarily make extradition disproportionate under Article 8. Only exceptionally serious circumstances can do so.

Three appellants appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge decisions ordering their return to Latvia for prosecution. They challenged the general condition of Latvian prisons and relied on individual circumstances: alleged threats and inter-prisoner violence, vulnerability as an informant, the care of a child, and HIV and hepatitis C. The central issues were whether the evidence established a systemic failure creating a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 3 or 8, and whether any appellant’s particular circumstances required extradition to be barred.

All three appeals were dismissed.

1. Applicable Article 3 approach. The requested person bears the legal burden of showing that the requesting state will not fulfil its Convention obligations. The threshold is high. Strong and cogent evidence must establish a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In prison-condition cases, this ordinarily requires evidence of a systemic failure producing such a risk. The absence of an ECtHR pilot judgment is not conclusive, but it makes the claim difficult. A continuing failure to implement CPT recommendations may justify refusal, depending on the requesting state’s response and remedial measures.
2. Evidence concerning Latvia. The court had to assess the current position. CPT findings were important, but deficiencies did not necessarily create an Article 3 breach for every prisoner. The latest material showed that extradited persons would normally be held in an investigation prison, not police detention; the prison population had fallen substantially; overcrowding was no longer established; and medical provision had improved. Earlier concerns about inter-prisoner violence and staffing were insufficient to establish a current systemic risk. The outdated US report and the expert reports added no material assistance.
3. Individual circumstances. RB’s evidence did not establish that his co-defendant had been murdered or that the alleged threat would result in a real risk. The Latvian authorities’ assurances that vulnerable prisoners would be protected and transferred if necessary were sufficient. EZ had not shown a real risk arising from her alleged role as an informant.
4. Article 8. A child’s welfare is a primary concern, but must be considered alongside the obligation to comply with extradition treaties and practical care arrangements. Grandparents and the Latvian Orphan Court could provide care for EZ’s child, and bail remained possible. Extradition was therefore proportionate. AS’s HIV and hepatitis C did not establish an Article 3 breach merely because treatment in Latvia was less extensive than treatment available in the United Kingdom. Medical circumstances falling short of Article 3 would prevent removal under Article 8 only in extremely rare cases, and this was not such a case.
5. Further guidance. Expert opinions on whether a real risk exists are generally irrelevant, and probably inadmissible, where the witness lacks direct experience of conditions in the requesting state. Evidence of observed conditions or relevant economic and governmental circumstances may assist where the witness has appropriate expertise. The court also supported case-management directions requiring clear, cogent and compelling new evidence from an internationally recognised source before general prison-condition evidence is heard in comparable EAW cases.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Heard three appeals under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 together and dismissed all of them.
• District Judges: Ordered each appellant’s return to Latvia for prosecution. No citation for those decisions was stated in the judgment.