Zvaricovics, R (On the Application Of) v Prosecutor General Office Republic of Latvia

In an extradition case engaging article 8, the requested person must establish a particularly strong case before the balancing exercise will outweigh the public interest in extradition. The court must assess the seriousness and circumstances of the offending, including the possibility that the quantity seized does not reflect the scale of a conspiracy. Family and private life, employment, delay and the requested person’s knowledge that criminal proceedings or sentence remained outstanding are relevant. The court should avoid excessive comparison between the sentence imposed abroad and the sentence that might have been imposed domestically.

The claimant appealed against a decision of District Judge Devas at Westminster Magistrates Court ordering his extradition to Latvia on a conviction European Arrest Warrant. He was required to serve four years, 11 months and 28 days for buying and storing methamphetamine with intent to supply. The appeal concerned whether the District Judge had applied the correct approach under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and whether the balancing exercise favoured the claimant, having regard to the quantity of drugs, his personal circumstances, family and private life, previous offending, delay and his departure from Latvia.

1. Appeal dismissed. Although the District Judge’s description of the article 8 threshold was unfortunate, the correct result had been reached.
2. In an extradition case involving article 8, the requested person must demonstrate what may be described as a particularly strong case before the balancing exercise will favour him. The public interest in extradition remains an important consideration. The approach was consistent with the principles summarised in HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25 and referred to in Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9.
3. The offending was serious because it involved an ongoing conspiracy to sell psychotropic substances. The small quantity seized did not necessarily indicate the nature or extent of the conspiracy. The five-year statutory minimum sentence indicated the seriousness attached to this offending by the Latvian authorities.
4. The court accepted that the claimant had enjoyed family life and had established a private life through employment in the United Kingdom. Those interests did not outweigh extradition. His family life with his former partner had ended. The delay was not substantial, and he had left Latvia knowing that matters remained outstanding and therefore could not claim to have developed a false sense of security.
5. It was unnecessary to undertake an extensive comparison between the Latvian sentence and the sentence which might have been imposed in the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, extradition was not disproportionate.

• Westminster Magistrates Court: On 19 August 2014, District Judge Devas ordered the claimant’s extradition to Latvia on a conviction European Arrest Warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had reached the right result, notwithstanding the unfortunate wording used in expressing the article 8 threshold.