Strods v Prosecutor Generals Office, Republic of Latvia

In an extradition proportionality assessment under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a fugitive may rely on established family or private life, but its weight is reduced where that life was created while the person knew that he had to face criminal proceedings and possible punishment. The court must consider the conduct and warrants in their overall context. Separate assessment of relatively minor allegations should not obscure the seriousness of the offending as a whole. Delay or administrative inefficiency may be relevant, but will not ordinarily outweigh extradition where it has not caused a false sense of security or broken the chain of causation. Extradition was proportionate, leaving the requested state to assess the totality of the conduct when sentencing.

This was a conjoined appeal against two orders made at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring the appellant’s return to Latvia under two European Arrest Warrants. One warrant concerned two theft allegations. The other concerned aggravated burglary, assault and criminal damage. The appellant relied on his relationship with his fiancée, his private life in the United Kingdom, delays in the transmission and handling of the warrants, and the practical hardship of detention and separation.

The court reconsidered the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights assessment on the two warrants together. The central issue was whether, having regard to the appellant’s fugitive status, the seriousness and sequence of the alleged offences, the administrative delays, and the effect of extradition on his family and private life, his return would be disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court accepted that the authorities had handled the two warrants inefficiently. The split proceedings caused avoidable detention and meant that the original assessment did not have the full picture. The court therefore re-evaluated proportionality on both matters taken together.
2. Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a fugitive can raise a family-life or private-life objection, but the weight attached to that life is likely to be diminished where it was established in circumstances known to be precarious from the outset. The appellant knew that he was required to face trial and possible punishment. His fugitive status did not bar the claim, but it materially affected the balance.
3. The court considered the seriousness of the aggravated burglary and assault allegations, the fact that the lesser theft allegations were said to have been committed while the appellant was subject to police supervision, and the subsequent criminal damage allegation. The public interest in international cooperation and the prevention of crime weighed strongly in favour of extradition.
4. The overall passage of time was not significant. The unexplained delay in transmitting the warrants was regrettable, but there was no evidence that it caused a false sense of security or interrupted the chain of causation. The hardship to the appellant’s fiancée and the restrictions imposed by detention and electronic monitoring did not outweigh the public interest in return.
5. The Latvian authorities should consider the appellant’s conduct as a whole when determining any sentence following conviction. That observation did not affect the proportionality of extradition. The appeal was dismissed. The surety for the second warrant was reduced to £500, with the other bail conditions continuing.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The conjoined appeal against the two extradition orders was dismissed. The court re-evaluated the Article 8 assessment on both European Arrest Warrants together.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The Senior District Judge ordered extradition on the first warrant. A District Judge ordered extradition on the second warrant after the appellant did not contest it.