Zelenko v Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia

An application to reopen an extradition appeal or continue a stay requires a sufficiently firm basis for doing so. Reported changes in prison conditions and an underlying medical vulnerability do not, without more, justify continuing protective orders where extradition is not realistically taking place. The court may take account of assurances that the prosecuting and enforcing authorities will liaise so that removal resumes only when it is proper and safe.

The appellant’s extradition to Latvia had previously been ordered by a district judge. The Divisional Court dismissed his appeal on 11 July 2020: [2020] EWHC 1800 (Admin). The appellant later sought to reopen the appeal, alternatively to adjourn its conclusion under section 25(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, and to continue a stay preventing his removal.

The applications were adjourned pending the decision in Dansfeld and Jodelis v General Prosecutor’s Office, Latvia [2020] EWHC 2042 (Admin) concerning prison conditions in Latvia. The central issue was whether reported Covid-19 cases at Riga Central Prison, together with the appellant’s medical conditions, provided a sufficiently firm basis for further intervention.

1. Applications refused. The court refused the applications to stay determination, reopen the extradition appeal, adjourn the conclusion of the case, and continue the order preventing removal.
2. The appellant relied on reported Covid-19 cases at Riga Central Prison and his underlying health condition. The court held that there was not a sufficiently firm basis for continuing the orders made in the previous year.
3. The court took account of the decision in Dansfeld and Jodelis v General Prosecutor’s Office, Latvia [2020] EWHC 2042 (Admin), in which the appeal had been dismissed and the court had held that general prison assurances were unnecessary. The judgment did not identify a basis for reopening the present appeal following that decision.
4. The court considered it unrealistic to suppose that extradition to Latvia was taking place at that time. It was satisfied that the National Crime Agency and the relevant Latvian authorities would liaise and resume extradition only when it was proper and safe to do so.

• Divisional Court: dismissed the appellant’s extradition appeal on 11 July 2020: [2020] EWHC 1800 (Admin).
• Divisional Court: refused certification of a point of law of general public importance. The present judgment then refused applications to reopen the appeal, adjourn its conclusion, and continue the stay.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the present applications were refused.