Valerijs Lukasovs v General Prosecutor’s Office (Latvia)

In an Article 8 challenge to extradition, fugitivity is not a decisive switch determining the outcome. The court must assess all circumstances concerning the passage of time, whether or not the requested person is a fugitive. The balancing exercise is highly fact-specific. Passage of time may weaken the public interest in extradition and strengthen private and family life interests, but its significance is reduced where delay results from the requested person’s deliberate conduct. Serious offending and a strong public interest in extradition may decisively outweigh family-life considerations.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against an order for his extradition to Latvia in connection with an alleged arson offence committed in 2014. The District Judge had considered oppression arising from delay, Article 8 private and family life, and statutory proportionality, and had ordered extradition.

On appeal, the appellant relied principally on the characterisation of his conduct as fugitive conduct, the passage of time, and the effect of extradition on his partner and children. The central issue was whether those matters made extradition an arguably disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The appellant’s Article 8 challenge had no realistic prospect of success.
2. Fugitivity does not operate as an “on/off switch” in the Article 8 compatibility of extradition. The extradition court must examine all the circumstances relating to the passage of time, while taking fugitivity into account where established. The same comprehensive assessment is required where the requested person is not found to be a fugitive.
3. The Article 8 balancing exercise is highly fact- and case-specific. Passage of time may weaken the public interest in extradition and strengthen private and family life interests. Its weight is limited where the passage of time is a direct consequence of the requested person’s deliberate conduct.
4. Although the appellant’s fugitivity status was treated as arguable, he knowingly failed to comply with an obligation enabling the Latvian authorities to locate him. He later failed to return to Latvia, provide promised information, or respond to further communications. Those matters materially reduced the significance of delay relied upon in his favour.
5. The appellant’s family ties, including the interests of his partner and the children, were considered. However, full-time cohabitation began only after his extradition arrest and release on bail, and his partner had previously cared for the children without him living with them. The seriousness of the index offence and the strong public interest in extradition decisively outweighed the countervailing Article 8 considerations.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal arose from the District Judge’s order for extradition dated 2 December 2022. Fordham J refused permission to appeal on 21 November 2023.