SLP v Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia

In an extradition appeal based on article 8, the court must review whether the extradition judge’s overall proportionality evaluation was wrong, while respecting findings of fact. Fresh evidence is controlled by the interests of justice and the statutory policy of speedy extradition. Evidence reasonably obtainable at the original hearing will generally be excluded, unless its admission is necessary to avoid a Convention breach. A conclusive grounds trafficking decision does not bind the court, which must decide the issue independently. Mental ill-health short of the high threshold for oppression may nevertheless be relevant to the article 8 balance. Family interference must be weighed globally against the strong public interest in extradition. In the absence of evidence to rebut it, a strong presumption applies that an EU requesting state will protect the requested person and provide appropriate care.

The applicant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by District Judge Leake at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 21 August 2023 directing his extradition to Latvia. The appeal concerned article 8 only. The applicant relied on alleged past forced labour in Latvia, settled family life in the United Kingdom, caring responsibilities and newly diagnosed PTSD and depression. He sought to adduce a psychological report as fresh evidence. The central issues were whether the report should be admitted and whether, taking it into account, extradition would be a disproportionate interference with article 8 rights.

1. Permission and outcome. Permission to appeal was refused. In any event, the appeal would have been dismissed. The court conducted a fresh article 8 balancing exercise and concluded that extradition involved no disproportionate interference with Convention rights.
2. Fresh evidence. Section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 operates as a rule of decision rather than a rule of admissibility. The High Court may admit evidence under its inherent jurisdiction where the interests of justice require it, but must respect the statutory policy that extradition proceedings be dealt with speedily. The applicant’s mental-health evidence could, with reasonable diligence, have been obtained for the original proceedings. It was not decisive of any statutory bar, and the court was not satisfied that the original judge would have reached a different conclusion. The report was therefore not admitted.
3. Physical or mental condition. The high threshold for oppression based on suicidality was not met. There was no substantial risk of suicide and no evidence that the applicant’s condition removed his capacity to resist the impulse. The strong presumption that Latvia, as an EU member state and ECHR signatory, would provide appropriate protection and medical care was not displaced. Mental-health conditions falling short of section 25 could nevertheless be considered in the article 8 balancing exercise.
4. Article 8 balance. The assessment was global and holistic. The applicant’s family separation, mental-health diagnoses, alleged forced labour and caring responsibilities were relevant factors, but the evidence did not establish exceptional severity. The offences were serious, the delay was limited, and the public interest in honouring extradition and treaty obligations was substantial. Latvia remained entitled to assess under its own law whether trafficking affected criminal responsibility. The public-interest factors significantly outweighed the interference with article 8 rights.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Leake ordered the applicant’s extradition to Latvia on 21 August 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was refused. The court stated that, even if permission had been granted, the appeal would have been dismissed.