Kristaps Bajars v Latvian Judicial Authority

In an extradition case engaging Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, serious private and family life consequences do not necessarily outweigh the public interest in extradition. The court must assess all relevant circumstances in the balance, including delay, time spent on remand, the age of the alleged offences, family ties and the impact of extradition. Where the requested person left the requesting state as a fugitive, the offences are serious and there are no children, the public interest may decisively prevail. Permission to appeal requires an argument with a realistic prospect of success.

The appellant faced extradition to Latvia under two accusation European Arrest Warrants concerning alleged drugs offences committed in 2014 and 2016. A District Judge ordered extradition on 18 January 2021 after hearing evidence from the appellant and his wife. Permission to appeal was refused on paper by Swift J on 26 March 2021.

On a renewed application, the appellant relied solely on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He argued that the District Judge had failed to give sufficient weight to periods of remand, the age of the allegations, Brexit-related uncertainty, the couple’s life in the United Kingdom and the effect of separation.

1. Permission threshold. The Article 8 argument was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success. The court could revisit the overall balance, or conduct it afresh using the District Judge’s findings and the updated remand position, but that would not alter the outcome.
2. Article 8 balance. The impact of extradition on the appellant and his wife, and the disruption to their established life in the United Kingdom, were serious and significant. Those matters had to be weighed against the public interest in extradition. Passage of time could weaken that public interest and strengthen private and family life considerations, while time spent on remand was also capable of weighing against extradition.
3. Weight of the public interest. The appellant had left Latvia as a fugitive while subject to reporting restrictions and without notifying the authorities. The alleged offences were properly characterised as serious. They involved alleged purchase, storage and supply of heroin and methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to supply, with Latvian imprisonment ranges of two to eight years and five to 15 years respectively.
4. The absence of children was relevant. Taking all factors together, the strong public interest in extradition decisively outweighed the matters relied on under Article 8.
5. Permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to appeal was refused on the renewed application.
• District Judge Callaway: extradition was ordered on 18 January 2021.
• Swift J: permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 26 March 2021.