Dzintars Jezdauckis v Prosecutor General's Office of The Republic of Latvia

In an extradition appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, a general finding that prison conditions in a requesting state comply with Article 3 does not determine the risk to a particular requested person. The court must assess the individual circumstances, including prior experience of degrading treatment and the likelihood of return to comparable conditions. A Part 1 country benefits from a strong presumption that it will comply with Article 3, but that presumption may require specific, reliable information about proposed detention arrangements. Single-cell accommodation may materially mitigate the risk created by inter-prisoner violence and an informal prison hierarchy. Article 8 arguments must be balanced against the strong public interest in extradition and did not justify permission or relief on the facts.

The appellant appealed against District Judge Law’s order of 28 June 2024 extraditing him to Latvia on an accusation warrant alleging conspiracy to produce and sell large quantities of drugs. Permission was granted on an Article 3 ground, and fresh medico-legal evidence concerning the appellant’s previous imprisonment in Latvia was admitted. Permission to appeal on Article 8 had initially been refused, with renewal considered alongside the substantive hearing.

The appellant relied on evidence of prior violence, the informal prisoner hierarchy in Latvia and a risk of recurrence. The court also considered updated evidence from the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and information supplied by the Latvian authorities about possible remand and sentenced accommodation. The central issues were whether extradition would expose this appellant to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, and whether an Article 8 ground should be permitted and succeed.

1. Appellate approach. The appeal was ultimately dismissed. Because fresh medical evidence and materially changed background information had been admitted, the court had to reach its own view on the Article 3 issue under the statutory scheme in the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Article 3 risk. The appellant’s eight years in Latvian custody, the independent evidence of a persistent informal prisoner hierarchy and inter-prisoner violence, and the possibility that he belonged to the lowest caste required an individualised assessment. The court agreed with Sostacks v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2025] EWHC 2795 (Admin) that risk to prisoners generally in Latvia did not itself establish an Article 3 breach. The court gave only moderate weight to the evaluative evidence concerning mental health and suicide risk, but accepted the significance of the appellant’s prior imprisonment and the surrounding independent evidence.
3. At the initial stage, general assurances and planned improvements were insufficiently specific. The court therefore sought information about the prisons likely to receive the appellant, remand and post-conviction arrangements, and measures addressing inter-prisoner violence.
4. Further information. The April information identified Riga Central Prison for remand, described lawful allocation criteria, confirmed capacity and new single-cell accommodation at Liepāja Prison, and outlined supervision, transfer, staff-training and related measures. Single-cell accommodation was treated as highly important in mitigating the relevant risk. Its availability, the lawful process for deciding placement, Latvia’s concrete investment in new facilities, the authorities’ awareness of the problem, the possibility of sending the judgment to Latvia and the presumption of compliance provided sufficient reassurance. The court concluded that there was no real risk of degrading treatment in the appellant’s particular circumstances.
5. Article 8. The court refused permission to pursue the Article 8 ground. The appellant’s personal and family circumstances, mental health and prior experience were outweighed by the strong public interest in extraditing a person accused of serious offending, respecting the requesting state’s decision and honouring international obligations.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed. After obtaining further information from the Latvian authorities, the court concluded that extradition would not create a real risk of Article 3 treatment in the appellant’s particular circumstances. Permission to pursue the Article 8 ground was refused.
• District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Law: On 28 June 2024, the District Judge ordered extradition and rejected the Article 3 and Article 8 arguments.