Jonicenoks v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia

Where extradition engages Article 8, the court must determine whether it is compatible with Convention rights and proportionate. Under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, the statutory proportionality assessment is confined to the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty, and the possibility of less coercive measures by the foreign authorities. Serious offending and the prospect of a substantial custodial sentence may outweigh the resulting hardship to the appellant and family members, particularly where the family member is not solely dependent on the appellant.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order extraditing him to Latvia under an accusation European Arrest Warrant to face trial for an alleged joint-enterprise street robbery. The only ground raised below was interference with Article 8 rights. The appellant lived with a woman and her son, who regarded him as a father, and the woman said that she depended on him financially. The District Judge concluded that extradition would not be disproportionate. On appeal, counsel made no submissions. The central issue was whether the extradition was compatible with Article 8 and proportionate under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s reasoning disclosed no error. The appellant’s Article 8 rights were engaged, but the exception in Article 8(2) applied.
2. Section 21A(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 permits extradition only where the court is satisfied that it is compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights and proportionate. Section 21A(3) identifies the matters to be taken into account: the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty on conviction, and the possibility of less coercive measures by the foreign authorities.
3. The hardship caused to the appellant’s immediate family was relevant but was not unusual in extradition cases. The appellant was not the child’s sole carer. Against that hardship, the court was entitled to weigh the seriousness of the alleged robbery, the likely custodial sentence, the public interest in bringing accused persons to trial, and the United Kingdom’s treaty obligations.
4. The court was satisfied that extradition was compatible with Article 8 and proportionate, principally because of the seriousness of the alleged conduct and the likely sentence. The extradition order therefore stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the order of District Judge Ikram at Westminster Magistrates’ Court dated 3 October 2014. Appeal dismissed.