SERGEJS JEROFEJEVS v GENERAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, LATVIA

An extradition appeal requires a viable and well-founded ground under the applicable legal standards. The appellate court has no power to permit the requested person to remain in the United Kingdom merely because personal, family or employment circumstances favour that outcome. Under Article 8 ECHR, extradition is prevented only where it would be a disproportionate interference with private or family life. Strong public-interest considerations may outweigh the individual and family factors relied upon. Challenges to an issuing authority or prison conditions will fail where authoritative decisions have resolved the relevant compatibility issue and no realistic basis for revisiting it is identified.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Ezzat on 9 April 2021 in respect of two European Arrest Warrants issued by Latvia. The first concerned alleged human-trafficking and deception offences, and the second concerned an alleged drugs conspiracy. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers, and two renewed grounds were argued before the Administrative Court.

The appellant also sought to rely for the first time on Article 8 ECHR, relying on his wife and child in the United Kingdom and his wish to remain and work here. The central issues were whether there was any viable challenge to the Latvian prosecutor’s status under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, whether Latvian prison conditions were compatible with Article 3 ECHR, and whether Article 8 supplied a basis for resisting extradition.

1. Permission refused. The court held that it had power to permit the appellant to remain in the United Kingdom only if there was a viable and well-founded ground of appeal applying the relevant legal standards. No such ground existed.
2. The proposed Article 8 ground was not viable. Article 8 can prevent extradition where extradition would constitute an unjustified or disproportionate interference with private or family life. The strong public interest in extradition clearly outweighed the appellant’s presence in the United Kingdom, the asserted impact on him or others, and his wish to obtain release and work here to fund legal assistance in Latvia.
3. The challenge under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, alleging that the Latvian prosecutor was not a judicial authority, had no realistic prospect of success. The lower court had accepted the respondent’s reliance on the parallel Latvian and Swedish arrangements, and the Luxembourg Court had authoritatively found the Swedish arrangements compatible with the relevant legal standards in XD (Case C 625/19 PPU).
4. The Article 3 challenge based on Latvian prison conditions likewise had no realistic prospect of success. The lower court had accepted the respondent’s reliance on Danfelds v Latvia [2020] EWHC 2042 (Admin), which had authoritatively determined the issue. The appellant’s representatives had identified nothing capable of substantiating either ground.
5. Accordingly, permission to appeal was refused.

• Administrative Court: District Judge Ezzat ordered extradition on 9 April 2021 after an oral hearing on 7 April 2021. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Cheema-Grubb J on 17 August 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed grounds and the proposed Article 8 ground were rejected. Permission to appeal was refused.