SLP v Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia

A conclusive grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism is a non-binding, paper-based assessment. The extradition court must determine for itself whether the requested person is a victim of trafficking or slavery. Extradition proceedings should not ordinarily be adjourned pending that decision, although an adjournment remains fact-specific and requires clear evidential justification. Section 61 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 concerns immigration removal and departure during the recovery period. It does not create a temporary bar to extradition. The statutory meaning must be determined from the language read in its wider context, purpose and legislative scheme, rather than by dictionary definitions alone.

This was an appeal in Part 1 extradition proceedings concerning a Latvian national who claimed that the conduct underlying the extradition request resulted from trafficking and slavery. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition to Latvia. Permission to appeal was granted on a rolled-up basis.

The applicant sought a further adjournment of the permission and merits hearing pending a conclusive grounds decision by the Single Competent Authority under the National Referral Mechanism. He argued that the decision might provide important evidence concerning his trafficking claim and article 4 and article 8 rights. The respondent argued that the decision would be non-binding, potentially of limited assistance, and that further delay was unjustified. The central issues were whether section 61 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 applied to extradition and whether the pending decision justified an adjournment.

1. Application dismissed. The rolled-up hearing listed for 8 April 2025 was not adjourned.
2. A conclusive grounds decision is a paper-based decision by an official of the Single Competent Authority on the balance of probabilities. It does not bind the extradition court. The court must decide for itself whether the requested person is a victim of trafficking or slavery and may reach a different conclusion. The court should not normally delay extradition proceedings to await an NRM referral or decision, although each adjournment application remains fact-specific and evidence-based.
3. Section 61 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 does not apply to extradition. Its long title, Explanatory Notes, legislative context and the statutes amended by the Act demonstrate that “removed from, or required to leave” refers to immigration enforcement. The applicant’s literal interpretation was therefore rejected. Statutory language must be read in the context of the statute as a whole and having regard to its policy and objects.
4. The potential future conclusive grounds decision did not justify delay. Its contents and outcome were unknown, it might be negative or inadmissible, and the court would remain responsible for making its own findings. The streamlined and expeditious character of extradition proceedings created a substantial public interest in timely determination.
5. The asserted risk of trafficking on return was unsupported by evidence that Latvia was unwilling or unable to provide reasonable protection. A strong but rebuttable presumption applied that a Council of Europe member state would comply with its article 4 obligations. No persuasive case for adjournment was established.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Leake ordered the applicant’s extradition to Latvia under section 21A(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The court dismissed the application to adjourn the rolled-up permission and merits hearing pending a conclusive grounds decision.