Jermaks v The Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia

Mandatory sentences are not inherently disproportionate or arbitrary under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the European Arrest Warrant system, requesting states may establish their own sentencing regimes, subject to Convention compliance, and UK courts should accord their sentencing decisions mutual confidence and respect. Comparing the sentence with one likely to have been imposed in the United Kingdom will rarely be appropriate, although exceptional cases may justify such scrutiny. The extradition court must balance the strong public interest in honouring extradition arrangements against the requested person’s Article 8 rights and those of affected family members. A fugitive’s conduct materially strengthens the case for extradition and weakens reliance on family life and delay.

This was an appeal from District Judge Ikram’s decision of 21 September 2015 ordering the appellant’s extradition to Latvia under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought his return to serve a five-year custodial sentence imposed after convictions for driving offences and repeated possession of methamphetamine.

The appellant argued that the sentence was a mandatory minimum and therefore arbitrary and disproportionate under Article 8. He also relied on the impact of extradition on his partner and her children. The central issue was whether the District Judge had correctly balanced those matters against the public interest in extradition.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that mandatory sentences of this nature are not themselves disproportionate under Article 8. The requesting state was not required, in the context of the European Arrest Warrant system, to justify the existence of the mandatory sentence under Article 8 merely because the sentence was mandatory. The relevant premise was mutual confidence and respect between Member States.
2. Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin) was binding. A Member State may establish its own sentencing regime and levels, provided they comply with the Convention. It is ordinarily inappropriate for a UK court to second-guess that policy or substitute its own view of the proper sentence. Only in rare cases may it be appropriate to consider whether the sentence is very significantly different from that which a UK court would impose.
3. The sentence was not arbitrary on the facts. Section 253(2) of the Latvian Criminal Law applied because the offending was repeated. The Latvian sentencing judge had considered aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the guilty plea, remorse, drug-free status and assistance to the police, and had imposed the statutory minimum.
4. Miglans v Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia [2014] EWHC 2659 (Admin) was an exceptional case involving small quantities of drugs, no relevant Latvian drug convictions and a sentence described as disproportionate. This case was materially different: the offending occurred against a background of criminality, previous non-compliance with sentences and repeated offending. Balaeiharis v Greece [2015] EWHC 3702 (Admin) confirmed that a sentence much more severe than one likely in the United Kingdom did not, of itself, justify refusing extradition.
5. The District Judge had lawfully balanced the Article 8 factors. The public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and preventing the United Kingdom becoming a refuge for fugitives was very strong. The appellant’s fugitive status weakened his reliance on the family life established after his departure and eliminated delay as a favourable factor. Although extradition would cause hardship to the appellant and his family, his partner could care for the children and the District Judge’s conclusions were open to him on the evidence.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Ikram’s order for extradition was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.