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

In extradition, the strong and continuing public interest in returning a requested person to face trial for serious offending will ordinarily prevail under article 8. Personal vulnerability, medical needs, a risk of exploitation and prospective support in the United Kingdom must be assessed individually and cumulatively, but will displace that interest only in an exceptional case.

Under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, oppression is a high threshold distinct from hardship. Physical or psychological difficulties which can reasonably be accommodated by the requesting state do not, without more, make surrender oppressive.

The appellant, a Latvian national accepted in the United Kingdom as a victim of human trafficking, was sought by Latvia under an accusation European arrest warrant to stand trial for stealing a handgun and ammunition. Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered her extradition in her absence.

She appealed out of time with permission. She relied on a risk of renewed trafficking, post-traumatic stress disorder, effects of a head injury, prospective support from her father and support services in the United Kingdom. She contended that surrender would breach articles 4 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and would be oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s circumstances did not outweigh the weighty public interest in surrendering her to Latvia to face trial for the serious alleged theft of a firearm and ammunition.
2. The court accepted that trafficking falls within the protection of article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the appellant did not ultimately pursue a direct article 4 challenge. Latvia criminalised trafficking and had protection and medical arrangements in place. The evidence did not rebut the strong presumption that Latvia would comply with its international obligations, nor show that it could not provide sufficient protection.
3. Applying the established article 8 extradition principles in Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic (Genoa) [2012] UKSC 25, the court made its own proportionality assessment. That was necessary because the District Judge had little information about the appellant when deciding the case in her absence.
4. The appellant’s contact with her estranged father and any future assistance from him were speculative. She could seek support in the United Kingdom, but that did not make a return to her former lifestyle unlikely. Latvian authorities would know of her trafficking history and medical needs; protection could be afforded if she obtained bail, treatment was available, and her circumstances could be advanced in mitigation. The delay and time spent in extradition custody added little to the article 8 balance.
5. Following Republic of South Africa v Dewani [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), oppression under section 25 is materially different from hardship and has a high threshold. The medical evidence showed vulnerability, but fell far short of establishing that surrender would be oppressive.

Green J agreed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The court dismissed the appellant’s extradition appeal in Cakule v The Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia [2016] EWHC 2211 (Admin).
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered the appellant’s extradition to Latvia pursuant to an accusation European arrest warrant on 28 July 2015.