Danfelds v General Prosecutor's Office, Latvia

In extradition cases, mutual trust requires a presumption that the requesting state will comply with Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter. That presumption may be rebutted only by objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information demonstrating a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Where the precise prison is uncertain, the court must assess a prison in which the requested person may realistically be detained if significant and specific concerns have been raised about its conditions. Prison defects, poor hygiene, inter-prisoner violence and temporary COVID restrictions must be assessed cumulatively and in context. Extradition may nevertheless be disproportionate under Article 8 where later developments materially reduce the public interest in extradition and substantially interfere with established family life.

Two appeals challenged extradition orders made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Both appellants argued that extradition to Latvia would expose them to a real risk of inhuman or degrading prison conditions contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The second appellant also challenged extradition under Article 8 and section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003.

Permission to appeal was granted after the Divisional Court directed further evidence and assurances concerning the prisons in which the appellants might be detained. The central issues were whether the evidence rebutted the presumption of mutual trust, whether conditions in the Grīva Section had to be considered despite uncertainty about placement, and whether later developments altered the proportionality assessment.

1. Article 3. The appeals failed on the prison-conditions ground. The presumption of mutual trust applied, and the appellants had not produced objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence sufficient to show a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.
2. It was necessary to consider the Grīva Section because the respondent could not exclude detention there and there was a real prospect of such placement. The principle in Dorobantu v Romania [2020] 1 WLR 2485 did not permit authoritative evidence of serious conditions in a realistically possible prison to be ignored merely because the precise prison had not been identified.
3. The CPT’s description that conditions could be considered inhuman and degrading was not determinative. It was expressed by a preventive monitoring body, concerned conditions observed in 2016, and had to be assessed alongside subsequent remedial work and updated information. Poorly maintained fabric and furniture ordinarily fell below the Article 3 threshold, while appalling and prolonged sanitary conditions might cross it. The evidence showed substantial remedial work and did not establish a continuing real risk.
4. The first appellant’s historic isolated assault did not establish a present risk. Wider evidence of inter-prisoner violence and staffing shortages was insufficient in light of the measures taken by the Latvian authorities. The COVID quarantine restrictions were limited, justified by infection control and did not approach the Article 3 threshold.
5. The application to adduce fresh evidence was allowed only for the COVID restrictions, the discharge of the second appellant’s earlier European Arrest Warrant and his electronically monitored curfew. It was rejected otherwise.
6. The first appellant’s Article 8 challenge failed. The second appellant’s later-served sentence, prolonged curfew, likely short penalty, established family life and 14-day isolation materially attenuated the public interest in extradition. Extradition was therefore disproportionate under Article 8 and section 21A. His extradition order was quashed and he was discharged.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeals from extradition orders made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The first appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The second appellant’s appeal was dismissed on Article 3 grounds but allowed on Article 8 and section 21A grounds, and he was discharged.
• Divisional Court: Permission to appeal was granted following refusal on the papers: [2020] EWHC 2042 (Admin).