JANIS SPIRGA v PROSECUTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE (LATVIA)

On an extradition appeal founded on Article 8, the appellate court may intervene where the overall proportionality evaluation was wrong because crucial factors should have been weighed so significantly differently as to alter the result. The passage of time may reduce the public interest in extradition and increase the impact on private and family life, including in a fugitivity case. Those effects must be assessed with all relevant circumstances, including the seriousness of the offending, the fugitive’s responsibility for delay, rehabilitation, compensation, family relationships and the welfare of affected children. The appellate court should stand back and review the overall evaluation rather than reweigh every factor mechanically.

The appellant appealed against an order for his extradition to Latvia on two allegations of theft. District Judge Godfrey ordered extradition on 22 June 2021 after an oral hearing. The appellant had left Latvia in 2006 knowing that criminal proceedings were pending and had lived in the United Kingdom for approximately 15½ years without a conviction. He relied on delay, compensation paid to the former employers, rehabilitation, employment and the impact of extradition on his partner and her children, particularly a seven-year-old child.

The central issue was whether the district judge’s Article 8 balancing exercise was wrong in the sense identified in Love v USA, so that extradition was incompatible with Article 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge’s evaluative judgment was not shown to be wrong in the sense identified in Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin).
2. The alleged offending consisted of two thefts committed when the appellant was aged 30, shortly after a suspended three-year custodial sentence and during its suspension period. Those matters created substantial public interest in extradition. The Latvian authorities had acted promptly at the initial investigative and prosecutorial stages, and the appellant had fled knowing of the proceedings and fearing imprisonment.
3. The passage of time was significant. It did not demonstrate great urgency, and the period after the extradition Arrest Warrant was issued was unexplained by specific official action. Even if the delay were characterised as culpable and dilatory, and even allowing for compensation and the appellant’s rehabilitation, the public interest remained weighty.
4. The appellant’s long residence, clean record, employment, rehabilitation and family relationships were significant factors. The welfare of the seven-year-old child was a primary consideration. Nevertheless, the child would not be left without a parent, since her mother had previously managed as a single parent.
5. The court’s task was to review the overall Article 8 proportionality evaluation. Standing back from the balance-sheet exercise, the features relied on by the appellant did not show that the question ought to have been decided differently or that crucial factors should have been weighed so differently as to make the decision wrong.

Extradition therefore remained compatible with Article 8.

• High Court (Administrative Court): [2022] EWHC 84 (Admin) dismissed the appeal against the extradition order.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Godfrey ordered extradition on 22 June 2021.