Vjaceslavs Vascenkovs v Prosecutor General’s Office, Republic of Latvia

The statutory proportionality bar for an accusation warrant is directed principally at very minor offending. The court makes an overall assessment of seriousness, likely penalty and less coercive measures, while allowing a significant margin for mutual recognition and proportionate international co-operation.

The post-Brexit surrender arrangements have not altered that approach. Information about the likely foreign sentence need not be requested merely because domestic sentencing could produce either a custodial or non-custodial penalty. A request is required only where the executing court considers the available information insufficient to decide surrender.

The appellant challenged a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Latvia under an accusation warrant. Latvia alleged that he had obtained unemployment benefit by supplying false employment and salary information.

He contended that extradition was disproportionate under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 and would interfere disproportionately with his article 8 rights. He also sought permission to add a ground alleging a real risk of article 3 ill-treatment because of inter-prisoner violence in Latvian prisons.

The principal issues were whether the post-Brexit surrender arrangements required closer proportionality scrutiny or further information about the likely Latvian sentence, and whether recent prison evidence raised an arguable article 3 case.

1. Appeal dismissed and application to amend refused. Section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 establishes a bespoke proportionality requirement for accusation warrants. The court must make an overall appreciation of seriousness, likely penalty and possible less coercive measures. The Criminal Practice Directions identify a floor rather than a ceiling for seriousness and do not displace the court’s own assessment.

2. The principle of mutual recognition requires a significant margin before extradition is held disproportionate. The statutory bar provides a further brake against extradition for very minor offences. Such a conclusion will be uncommon and is likely to arise only in unusual circumstances. Miraszewski v District Court in Torun, Poland [2015] 1 WLR 3929 followed.

3. Articles 597 and 613 of the Trade and Co-operation Agreement did not create a new approach to section 21A. Article 597 states a wider, overarching principle applying to the issuing authority, the executing authority and the general obligation of co-operation. In substance, the present arrangements do not materially differ from the former Framework Decision system in a way requiring closer scrutiny by the executing court.

4. Domestic sentencing practice may provide a broad measure of seriousness and likely penalty. Its use is hypothetical and does not require the precision expected after trial. The District Judge permissibly concluded that the alleged benefit fraud could fall within high culpability and could attract custody.

5. There is no hard-edged rule requiring information from the issuing authority whenever domestic sentencing could be custodial or non-custodial. Under article 613(2), the need for supplementary information depends upon the executing court’s judgment as to whether the available information is sufficient. The District Judge had enough information and committed no error.

6. The article 8 challenge failed. The appellant’s private and family life in the United Kingdom was limited, so that the challenge depended upon the alleged offending being insufficiently serious to justify extradition. The section 21A challenge having failed, the article 8 challenge also failed.

7. Latvia benefited from a strong presumption that it would comply with article 3. Recent evidence showed continuing problems with inter-prisoner violence, but also continuing efforts to address them and some progress. It did not establish substantial grounds for believing that surrender would expose the appellant to article 3 ill-treatment.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed, and permission to add an article 3 ground was refused: [2023] EWHC 2830 (Admin).

2. District Judge: On 7 November 2022, the District Judge ordered the appellant’s extradition to Latvia under an accusation warrant.