Gromovs v Prosecutor General's Office of Republic of Latvia

Extradition will not be oppressive merely because the requested person presents a substantial risk of suicide. The risk must be so overwhelming, and incapable of management by appropriate measures, that extradition would be unjust or oppressive. The receiving state must be given full medical and psychiatric information so that suitable safeguards can be implemented. Reliable assurances that the requested person will receive necessary care may be accepted, even where prison resources and past treatment practices have caused concern.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s decision ordering his extradition to Latvia to face a serious assault charge, equivalent in England to causing actual bodily harm.

He had a history of self-harm and possible suicide attempts. Psychiatric evidence indicated a very high risk of suicide if extradited, although he did not suffer from a severe psychiatric illness and the risk was associated with his personality condition and attitude towards returning to Latvia.

The central issue was whether the risk of suicide, together with concerns about psychiatric care and prison conditions in Latvia, made extradition unjust or oppressive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge had properly considered the relevant evidence and reached the correct conclusion.
2. A threat or risk of suicide does not ordinarily make extradition oppressive. The threshold is exceptionally high: the case must be overwhelming, and the court must be satisfied that nothing could be done to prevent the feared result. A court cannot properly decide that suicide is certain.
3. The risk need not arise from a treatable psychiatric illness. A personality condition and associated impulsive behaviour may create a serious risk, but the question remains whether that risk can be managed in the receiving state.
4. General prison conditions in Latvia had been considered in Brazuks & Ors v Prosecutor General's Office, Republic of Latvia [2014] EWHC 1021 (Admin), where no real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 had been found. That conclusion was not contested. The distinct concern about psychiatric and suicide care was addressed by the Latvian authorities’ assurances that necessary care would be provided.
5. Where extradition raises medical or suicide risks, the requesting state must receive full relevant information. The psychiatric report and other material reports should accompany the appellant, enabling the Latvian authorities to provide appropriate observation and treatment.
6. Although staffing shortages, reduced psychiatric capacity and past punishment of self-harm gave rise to concerns, the court had no reason to disbelieve the assurances that the appellant’s risk would be managed and that self-harm would not be punished in his case.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Collins dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 and upheld the district judge’s decision ordering extradition.