Petrovs v Riga City Suburb Court (Latvia)

In extradition proceedings, a requested person alleging an Article 3 risk must establish a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by strong and cogent evidence. A presumption applies that a European requesting state will comply with its Convention obligations.

Under Article 8, the public interest in extradition will ordinarily outweigh family-life rights unless the interference would have exceptionally severe consequences. Proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 is confined to the specified matters: the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty, and the possibility of less coercive measures.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Coleman’s order at Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring his extradition to Latvia under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned alleged thefts involving jewellery and vehicle wing mirrors.

He relied on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. His Article 3 case was based on a general fear of retaliation by a Latvian gang. His Article 8 case relied on the impact of extradition on his private and family life. The court had to determine whether extradition was Convention-compatible and proportionate under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Article 3. The court adopted the approach stated in Krolik v Poland [2012] EWHC 2357 (Admin) and repeated in Brazuks v Latvia [2014] EWHC 1021. A very strong and cogent case is required to establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. Since Latvia is a Convention state and a member of the Council of Europe, strong evidence is required to overcome the presumption that it will comply with its Convention obligations. The appellant’s vague fear did not meet that threshold.
2. Article 8. Following Norris v United States No 2 [2010] UKSC 9 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, the relevant question was whether the interference with private and family life was outweighed by the public interest in extradition. The consequences would need to be exceptionally severe before family-life rights displaced that public interest. The appellant had no family or employment in the United Kingdom, and no such exceptional severity was shown.
3. Proportionality. Under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, the court considered the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty, and the possibility of less coercive measures. The repeated dishonesty offences were serious, a substantial custodial sentence was likely, and less coercive measures were unlikely. The multiple counts and previous offending history were aggravating factors under Part 17A of the Criminal Practice Direction.
4. Extradition was Convention-compatible and proportionate. The appeal was dismissed, subject to the appellant’s liberty to apply within seven days to set aside or vary the order, supported by a witness statement, because he had not appeared.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Coleman ordered the appellant’s extradition to Latvia on 3 December 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed, subject to liberty to apply within seven days to set aside or vary the order.