Jazeps Birskis v General Prosecutor's Office, Latvia

On an appeal concerning proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellate court must decide whether the district judge’s decision was wrong. The proportionality assessment is a free-standing judgment confined to the specified matters: the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty, and the availability of less coercive measures.

Domestic sentencing guidelines may provide general assistance, but a district judge is not required to conduct a detailed or precisely calibrated sentencing exercise. A possible or likely non-custodial or suspended sentence does not, by itself, make extradition disproportionate. The assessment remains an overall evaluation respecting mutual recognition and the requesting state’s criminal justice system.

The appellant appealed under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order dated 20 March 2023 for his extradition to Latvia. The Latvian accusation warrant alleged that he had arranged for others to burgle a neighbour’s home and had received part of the stolen money.

The district judge rejected challenges based on section 21A and article 8 of the Convention and concluded that extradition would not be disproportionate. Permission to appeal was granted after refusal on the papers. The central issue was whether the district judge had applied the proportionality test wrongly by failing to assess precisely the likelihood of imprisonment under English sentencing guidelines.

1. Appeal dismissed. The district judge’s decision was not wrong within the meaning of sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Section 21A creates a free-standing proportionality bar. The judge must consider only the specified matters in section 21A(3), so far as appropriate: the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty, and the possibility of less coercive measures. The assessment is an overall judicial evaluation rather than a precisely calibrated domestic sentencing exercise.
3. The approach in Miraszewski v District Court in Torun, Poland established that the Lord Chief Justice’s guidance identifies a floor rather than a ceiling for seriousness. The court may assess conduct outside the listed categories as non-serious, but the guidance does not exhaust the statutory inquiry. The main components of seriousness are the nature and quality of the alleged acts, the requested person’s culpability, and the harm caused to the victim.
4. Following Swiatek v Regional Court in Lodz, Poland and Vascenkovs v Latvian Judicial Authority, domestic sentencing guidelines may be used as a general measure of seriousness and likely consequence. They are applied hypothetically because the court lacks the full facts available after trial. A judge is not required to determine sentencing matters in detail or to obtain information from the requesting authority in every borderline case.
5. The district judge was entitled to regard the alleged offending as serious. The appellant’s role in inciting a joint enterprise and benefiting from the burglary made his culpability substantial, even though he was not alleged to have entered the property. Previous convictions and the existing community penalty were relevant. A possible non-custodial or suspended sentence did not itself make extradition disproportionate. Swiercz v The Regional Court in Poznan, Poland was distinguishable on its facts, while Kemp v Spanish Judicial Authority supported the conclusion concerning suspended sentences.
6. The appellant had not established that the district judge’s assessment was legally deficient. Extradition was therefore permitted to stand.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the District Judge’s order dated 20 March 2023 dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: final extradition hearing on 10 March 2023; judgment reserved and extradition ordered on 20 March 2023.