Janis Sostaks & Anor v Prosecutor General’s Office, Latvia

In extradition cases involving a Council of Europe state, there is a strong presumption that the requested person will be treated in accordance with article 3 of the ECHR. It may be rebutted by clear, cogent and compelling evidence establishing a real and personal risk of prohibited treatment. Evidence of systemic failings or earlier violations does not automatically establish that risk at a later date.

The prospect that drug rehabilitation may affect a prisoner’s informal caste status, or that refusal of treatment may reduce the prospect of early release, did not itself create an article 3 risk. Under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, the likely penalty may include credit for time spent on remand in the executing state. Extradition nevertheless remained proportionate where multiple offences, previous convictions and the public interest in prosecution outweighed the close case for discharge.

Mr Sostaks appealed against an order extraditing him to Latvia to face five theft charges. Mr Igoniņs appealed against an order extraditing him to face two drugs charges. Both relied on evidence concerning Latvia’s informal prison hierarchy, under which prisoners receiving addiction treatment might become members of the lowest caste and face degrading treatment.

The Administrative Court considered updated reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the Latvian Government’s response, and the Strasbourg decision in D. v. Latvia. Mr Sostaks also challenged extradition as disproportionate under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, relying on 21 months spent on remand. The central issues were whether the article 3 presumption had been rebutted and whether time spent on remand was relevant to proportionality.

1. Article 3. The appeals on prison conditions were dismissed. The court applied the strong presumption that Latvia, as a Council of Europe and European Union state, would comply with article 3. Rebuttal required strong grounds establishing a real risk, supported by clear, cogent and compelling evidence. The assessment had to address both the general conditions in the receiving state and the individual’s foreseeable circumstances.
2. The evidence showed that Latvia’s informal prisoner hierarchy remained persistent and that the lowest caste might suffer degrading treatment. However, the evidence also showed gradual improvement. Earlier Strasbourg findings concerning particular prisoners and earlier periods did not, without more, establish the necessary later risk for these appellants. D. v. Latvia was not treated as establishing that every person exposed to the hierarchy would face article 3 treatment.
3. The possibility that participation in drug rehabilitation might result in becoming an untouchable, while refusal might reduce the prospect of early release, was insufficient. Having to serve a sentence in full was not itself degrading treatment. Neither appellant had shown a sufficiently personal and substantial risk to rebut the presumption.
4. Proportionality. The court rejected the argument that section 21A had to be considered in the statutory order. The phrase “likely penalty” could properly include time already spent on remand in the executing state. That flexible interpretation was consistent with the purpose of avoiding unnecessarily long pre-trial detention and with article 624 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
5. Although Mr Sostaks had spent 21 months on remand and most alleged thefts were minor, the offending was multiple and included a more serious bicycle theft. His previous convictions for theft and burglary showed that community sentences had not worked. Extradition remained proportionate, having regard also to Latvia’s public interest in prosecuting the alleged offences. Both appeals were dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — [2025] EWHC 2795 (Admin): Mr Sostaks’s appeal was dismissed on the article 3 and proportionality grounds. Mr Igoniņs’s appeal was dismissed on the article 3 ground.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court — Mr Sostaks was ordered to be extradited on 10 October 2024.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court — Mr Igoniņs was ordered to be extradited on 29 November 2024.