Mareks Grants v Prosecutor General's Office, Latvia

Fugitive status does not require criminal proceedings to have begun, nor does it invariably require breach of an existing obligation. The question is whether the requested person deliberately and knowingly placed himself beyond the reach of the relevant legal process, assessed on the evidence at the time of departure. The court may consider the aggregate effect of the evidence, including the person’s own stated motivation, conduct suggesting evasion, and the quality of subsequent engagement with the authorities.

In an Article 8 extradition assessment, fugitive status is not a binary consideration. The underlying conduct may still bear on the weight given to the passage of time and the person’s life in the United Kingdom. Extradition may remain proportionate even if fugitive status is wrongly attributed.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Latvia to stand trial for alleged fraud. Permission to appeal was granted solely on the arguable issue of fugitive status.

The appellant had left Latvia after learning that the alleged victim intended to report the matter to the police. The District Judge found that he had left to avoid the investigation and had subsequently engaged with the Latvian authorities in a manner that was not meaningful. The central questions were whether fugitive status could arise before formal proceedings began and whether, absent that status, extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s Article 8 rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to find that the appellant had left Latvia as a fugitive.
2. The governing question was whether the appellant deliberately and knowingly placed himself beyond the reach of the relevant legal process. Formal commencement of criminal proceedings is not a necessary precondition. The absence of an obligation to remain in the requesting state is not determinative.
3. The conclusion was supported by the aggregate evidence, including the appellant’s immediate departure after learning of the proposed police report, his own evidence about his motivation, evidence that he contemplated hiding from the police, his suspicious name change, and his refusal to participate in a video interview. The case was materially different from Koc v Turkish Judicial Authority [2021] EWHC 1234 (Admin).
4. For completeness, the Article 8 assessment was upheld even assuming that the fugitive-status finding was wrong. The District Judge had correctly balanced the seriousness of the alleged offending, the public interest in fulfilling extradition obligations, the appellant’s family ties, and the evidentially established impact of extradition. The underlying conduct could also affect the weight given to the passage of time spent developing or maintaining a life in the United Kingdom.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed. The court upheld the extradition order and concluded that the Article 8 assessment remained proportionate even without fugitive status.
2. District Judge Turnock: Ordered the appellant’s extradition to Latvia and found that he had deliberately and knowingly placed himself beyond the reach of the relevant legal process. The citation was not stated in the judgment.