[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Davida v Ventspils Court Latvia [2013] EWHC 534 (Admin) (13 February 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/534.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 534 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		13 February 2013

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Coleman, given on 21 December 2012, whereby he directed that the appellant should be returned to Latvia to face prosecution for two alleged offences. The offences in question are that in May 2007 she obtained what is called a "consumption loan" by deception, in that the reference attached to the application which she made for the loan was said to be counterfeited, presumably forged. The second offence was allegedly committed in early 2008 when she is said to have stolen a large quantity of drink, crisps, coffee and juice from the place where she was working at the time as a barmaid.
2. She came to this country in order to obtain employment because there was no work available to her in Latvia. She has a family in Latvia. Unfortunately, her marriage broke down, and the two children (one 18, the other 10) live with her ex-husband. It was intended, she says, that her husband should join her with the children, but following the breakdown he decided that he did not want to leave Latvia. There was a formal separation in October 2011. Since being in this country, she has worked and has obtained a job with an estate agent, a job which she finds fulfilling and in which she is very happy. All this will be lost if she is returned to face trial in Latvia.
3. She is adamant that she is not guilty of either of the offences with which she is charged. But, as I have explained, it is not possible for me, or indeed for the district judge in considering whether extradition should take place, to go into whether or not the requested person, in this case the appellant, is or is not guilty of the offence charged. All that I can do is to look at the warrant and decide whether the offences are appropriately described and are extradition offences. There is no question but that the warrant complies with all the technical requirements.
4. Before the district judge, the issue raised on behalf of the appellant was delay. It was said that it would, in the circumstances, be oppressive to require her to be returned to Latvia. She was arrested on 12 October last year, and so the offences were four or five years old.
5. There is, I am afraid, no evidence that can satisfy me that the passage of time was unreasonable or that the Latvian authorities acted in an unreasonable fashion in failing to pursue the matter before they did. I do not know when the allegations against her were made or at what stage it was that the prosecuting authorities were able to satisfy the Judicial Authority that a prosecution was appropriate, as opposed merely to suspicion and investigation, because an arrest warrant cannot be issued until the Judicial Authority is satisfied that a prosecution should follow.
6. Even if there were delay, it is necessary for it to be established that to return would be either unjust or oppressive. So far as unjust is concerned, that relates to an inability to contest the charges. That is not raised. Oppressive is a high hurdle to be surmounted. It has to be shown that it would be more than mere hardship (because inevitably hardship results from an extradition), and the law, as I say, is clear that a high threshold is required.
7. The appellant says that she would not only lose her job here and any income but would be unable to find any work in Latvia. Indeed, if she had been able to find work in Latvia she would not have come to this country, because obviously her family is still in Latvia and she has the problem that she obviously is not a fluent English speaker.
8. I am afraid that the district judge was correct to find that she did not establish that to return would be oppressive. In all the circumstances, I am afraid I must dismiss this appeal.
9. Mr Sternberg, the appellant is obviously on bail. Is there any reason why bail should not be continued?
10. MR STERNBERG: My Lord, no. She is on conditional bail to (Inaudible) magistrates' court.
11. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: The bail on which you are at the moment, the same conditions that apply will continue until you are told that you must attend to go to Latvia.