[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 >> Brazuks & Ors v Prosecutor General's Office, Republic of Latvia [2014] EWHC 1021 (Admin) (09 April 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/1021.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 1021 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 160

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [View ICLR summary: [2014] WLR(D) 160] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		9 April 2014

Mr Justice Collins :

1. These three appeals are brought pursuant to Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against decisions of a District Judge that each appellant should be returned to Latvia to face prosecution for offences. They have been listed to be heard together in order to enable the court to give an authoritative decision on the issue which has been raised in a number of cases involving extradition to Latvia: whether the state of the Latvian prison estate is such as to produce a real risk that there will be a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR if returns are directed. The three appellants were each said to raise particular matters which, independently of any general argument on the shortcomings of the Latvian prison estate, showed that they were especially vulnerable.
2. In oral argument Mr Alun Jones, Q.C. did not seek to make any generalised attack on the Latvian prison estate. The court has received all relevant evidence which has enabled us to consider this issue and, having regard to the purpose of listing these appeals together, it would be wrong for us not to deal with it. Mr Alun Jones did not make any concessions, but, as will become clear, there can be no doubt that any such generalised attack would be bound to fail.
3. The special issues said to exist in these three appeals which were argued by Mr Alun Jones are as follows. I shall refer to the appellants by their initials, namely RB, EZ and AS. RB was, he said, threatened by a co-accused with being killed and his fear in that regard was increased because another co-accused had met his death in prison in circumstances which had not been properly investigated and which were entirely consistent with murder by a fellow prisoner. He was thus to be regarded as a vulnerable prisoner and there was a failure to protect such prisoners from inter-prisoner violence. EZ's case concerned prison and detention centre conditions for females and she alleged that she would be a vulnerable prisoner because she had acted as an informant. AS has been diagnosed to be suffering from HIV and Hepatitis C. In his case, the issue whether there is a satisfactory system of treatment for prisoners is material, it being his case that such a system is so deficient as to be a breach of his human rights.
4. In assessing whether there may be a breach of Article 3, the approach which must be applied has been considered in a number of cases. A very strong case must be established to show that there would be a real risk that the requested person would be subjected to treatment which would breach his or her rights in that he or she would suffer torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Latvia, in common with all states which can use the EAW procedure, is a signatory to the ECHR and a member of the Council of Europe. Accordingly, it would take very strong and cogent evidence to show that Latvia or any requesting state within the EU was not willing or able to fulfil; its obligations under the Conventions. A number of cases have referred to a presumption that states will comply with their Convention obligations which will have to be overcome by evidence in a particular case. In one of the most recent cases, Aleksynas & Others v Lithuania [2014] EWHC 437 (Admin), Jay J, who was sitting with Moses LJ, said in paragraph 98:-

"Perhaps the better way of expressing the matter is that the Appellants face the legal burden of proving that the requesting state would not fulfil its obligations under the Convention, and that the threshold is a relatively high one ('strong grounds for believing')"

5. I doubt that there is much if any difference whichever approach is applied. There has been a consistent approach to prison condition cases in this court that what must be shown is an international consensus that a breach may occur. This test was referred to by Mitting J in Tworkovski v Poland [2011] EWHC 1502 (Admin) applying the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (case C-411/10 and 493/10). This is in my view properly translated into a need to show a systemic failure resulting in a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. Such a failure led the Court in Badre v Court of Florence, Italy [2014] EWHC 614 (Admin) to decide that the appellant should not be returned to Italy since in a pilot judgment the ECtHR had stated, in Torreggiani v Italy, (Application No.43517/09) decided in January 2013, that overcrowding in Italian prisons breached Article 3. Rule 61 of the Rules applicable to the ECtHR provides:-

"1. The court may initiate a pilot judgment procedure and adopt a pilot judgment where the facts of an application reveal in the Contracting Party concerned the existence of a structural or systematic problem or other similar dysfunction which has given rise or may give rise to similar applications."

6. While I do not go so far as to say that the absence of such a judgment will inevitably defeat a claim that there is a real risk of a breach of Article 3, it will be very difficult for any requested person to establish such a risk if the ECtHR has not been persuaded that a systemic problem or similar dysfunction exists. There have been a number of cases decided by the ECtHR dealing with the Article 3 claims in relation to treatment in Latvian prisons. Many have resulted from particular assaults or ill-treatment which were, it was alleged, not properly prevented or investigated. The only possible systemic failure has been the lack of an independent investigation into assaults, whether by prison or police officers or other prisoners. But this does not establish that there is a real risk that such assaults or ill-treatment will occur or that there will be no satisfactory means of protecting vulnerable prisoners. It could only show that if such an assault or ill-treatment occurred it might not be investigated by an independent body rather than by persons subject to control by the prison authority.
7. Apart from recourse to the ECtHR, there is a further protection for prisoners through investigations by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Latvia has been visited regularly by the CPT which has considered prison conditions there. A number of problems have been identified over the years during which such visits have taken place and we have been provided with copies of the CPT's reports dating back to 1999. However, Mr Alun Jones accepted that what we have to consider is whether now there would be a real risk of a contravention of Article 3 were the appellants or any of them to be extradited. Thus the important report is the latest which was produced following a visit in September 2013. I accept that a continuing failure to act on recommendations made by the CPT where such failure would leave in being a state of affairs which would be likely to breach Article 3 could persuade this court to find that an extradition request should be refused. But much would depend on the response of the requesting state and whether it was taking reasonable steps to remedy the state of affairs and to provide sufficient protection to the individual requested person. It must also be borne in mind that deficiencies identified by the CPT will not necessarily result in a breach of a particular individual's human rights.
8. In addition to any systemic failures identified by the ECtHR or a continuing failure to take steps to deal with a problem identified by the CPT, a requested person might be able to show that because of particular matters affecting him or her he or she was likely to suffer treatment which breached Article 3. I doubt whether this would be likely to be established save in the most exceptional circumstances which do not apply in any of the appeals before us. But the possibility must not be ruled out.
9. The approach I have set out is not in my judgment in conflict with the recent decision of the Supreme Court in R(EM Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] 2 All ER 192. The case concerned removals to Italy of asylum seekers in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation. There were four appellants all of whom claimed that to send them to Italy would breach their human rights in that they would be treated in a way which breached Article 3. Whether or not a state such as Italy could be regarded as safe for such asylum seekers had been considered by the ECtHR in MSS v Belgium & Greece (2011) 31 BHRC 313 and more importantly since its decision is binding by the CJEU in NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] QB 102. It had been believed that the effect of these decisions was that only if a systemic failure to provide the necessary protection of Article 3 rights could be shown would returns be unlawful. Lord Kerr, giving the judgment with which all other members of the court agreed, focussed on paragraph 81 of the CJEU's judgment in NS. Having stated that it must be assumed that the treatment of asylum seekers in all member states complied with the requirements of the Charter, the CJEU continued:-

"It is not however inconceivable that that system may, in practice, experience major operational problems in a given member state, meaning that there is a substantial risk that asylum seekers may, when transferred to that member state, be treated in a manner incompatible with their fundamental rights."

10. Treatment of asylum seekers will be particularly dependent on ensuring that there are no major operational problems. There will be the need to house them and to provide them with sufficient facilities to enable them to live in circumstances which are not degrading to them. There may well be different authorities who are responsible for caring for them in different parts of a member state. Furthermore, it is clear that the Supreme Court was particularly concerned at what the individual appellants had suffered while in Italy which had led them to leave and come to the United Kingdom.
11. It is difficult to believe that any such major operational problems could be shown to exist in considering general prison conditions since any such problems leading to a breach of Article 3 would be picked up by the CPT. As I have said, it will be open to a requested person to show that he or she will have particular difficulties which cannot be overcome so that there is a real risk of relevant ill-treatment. But in the absence of any systemic breach or a breach identified by the CPT which has not or will not be rectified it is very difficult to believe that an individual will save exceptionally be able to establish that in his or her case there is a real risk of breach.
12. The visit in September 2013 was what the CPT calls an ad hoc visit. It was carried out to see whether recommendations to deal with shortcomings identified in a formal visit in September 2011 had been complied with. The CPT had sent the report on the September 2011 visit to the Latvian government in March 2012 but it was not formally published until August 2013. It stated at its outset:-

"The CPT calls upon the Latvian authorities to improve the situation in the light of the recommendations made by the Committee in this report. If decisive action is not taken in the near future, it will have no choice but to consider having recourse to the procedure provided for in Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention."

Article 10 enables the Committee to decide to make a public statement if there is a refusal to improve the situation in the light of the Committee's recommendations.

13. The Committee was concerned that 'little or no progress' had been made in implementing their recommendations after previous visits 'in particular as regards conditions of detention in police establishments, the regime of activities offered to remand prisoners, the regime and security measures applied to life sentence prisoners, and prison staffing levels.' The regime conditions and measures referred to in these cases and any shortcomings in activities offered to remand prisoners could not breach Article 3. Prison staffing levels were inadequate and that could affect the ability to deal effectively with inter-prisoner violence.
14. Whether persons extradited to face prosecution would be detained in police establishments was the subject of an inquiry of the respondent replied to on 20 February 2014. The respondent stated:-

"In practice, if a person were extradited from a foreign state to the Republic of Latvia it would be very rare for them to be placed in a short-term detention facility. Those facilities are used by the police, usually immediately following arrest, before the person appears before an investigation judge. An extradited person would, on arrival in the country, be sent to an 'investigation prison'. The only possibility of an extradited person being held in a short-term detention facility would be if they had to be transported to another region of the country for a court hearing. In such cases the police would arrange the transportation, and as they might place the person in short term detention for a short period if necessary for transportation purposes, such as an overnight stay on route. "

Further, this was said:-

"A person extradited from a foreign state to Latvia for the purpose of prosecution would normally be held in an investigation prison, unless it was necessary to hold them in a short term detention centre for a short period for the purpose of transportation, as explained above."

A person extradited for the purpose of serving a sentence would be held in a prison for convicted persons.

15. I see no reason to doubt this information since it makes sense because extradition can only be sought under an accusation warrant if the investigation is concluded and a prosecution is to take place. Mr Alun Jones sought to rely on the delays which were known to occur in bringing proceedings in court and which could lead to lengthy periods on remand. He suggested that this could result in remand in police detention. But in the light of the information which I have cited there is no reason to believe this would occur. The extradited person would be detained if bail were refused in what is described as an investigation prison which is part of the system under the Ministry of Justice not the police.
16. There had been problems caused by overcrowding so that prisoners did not have the 3m? space, the minimum which the ECtHR had regarded as necessary to avoid a breach of Article 3. The CPT considered a minimum of 4m? should be achieved. However, the prison population has been falling. In September 2011 it stood at 6,624 in an official capacity of 8,000, based on only 2.5m? of living space. By September 2013 it had fallen to 5,325, including 1,538 on remand. The response of 20 February 2014 showed a further reduction to 5,126. These decreases had resulted from amendments to the criminal justice system and it was anticipated that criminal law reforms of 2013 would result in a further 30% reduction in the long term. Thus overcrowding is not now a problem.
17. In his skeleton argument, Mr Alun Jones submitted that the CPT was authoritative as to prison conditions. He relied on Lutsyuk v Government of Ukraine [2013] EWHC 189 (Admin) for that proposition. That case does not go so far as is submitted but it does unsurprisingly refer in detail to the findings of the CPT following its visits. Those findings will inevitably be accepted in the absence of any compelling evidence that an error may have been made. But it will always be of fundamental importance to ascertain the up to date situation and so to have regard to any evidence produced by the requesting state which asserts that improvements have been made since the CPT's last visit.
18. We have been referred to the Annual Report for 2012 from the Latvian Ombudsman. It deals with the "protection of prisoners' rights in closed type institutions". The report noted that complaints about non-compliance with human rights were more than halved between 2011 and 2012 (164 complaints in 2001 reduced to 68 in 2012). One prison in particular generated a number of complaints about problems in the physical state of accommodation including overcrowding. The report noted that steps had been taken to follow recommendations made by the ombudsman. There was a lengthy consideration of arrangements for medical care. The ombudsman recorded in relation to Hepatitis C and HIV:-

"The Prison administration considers that they cannot afford that prisoners could fully receive free treatment for which other people are required to pay a significant amount of money. Therefore a situation could develop that people who need treatment, might want to get to the prison, to get free specific treatment of type C virus hepatitis. Ombudsman partly agree to this view, holding the view that medical treatment and pre-treatment examination of type C virus hepatitis should be ensured similarly to the HIV/AIDS treatment and examination – within the framework of government programme – to all the people free of charge."

The report observed that the Prison Administration had shown that prisoners were being treated where necessary outside the prison and that "the medication reimbursement to the prisoners had been prescribed."

19. The report considered a number of complaints about violence from prison staff. This was said:-

"The Ombudsman's Office has received several submissions from prisoners about the cases of violence from the prison staff. These submissions have been forwarded to the Prison Administration with a request to check and to notify the Ombudsman. In its replies the Prison Administration has communicated that there have been discussions made with particular prisoners and either they have ceased to have claims against actions of the staff, or they have withdrawn their submissions. It is known that prohibition to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment included in Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe imposes to the State a positive obligation to thoroughly investigate and to carry out checks in any event of violence, and to provide a sufficiently plausible explanation for the origin of the bodily injuries occurred by the prisoners. Otherwise, there is a reason to believe that a breach of the human rights of prisoners has occurred. Given that the Ombudsman has become suspicious of ineffective checks, the said was notified to the Ministry of Justice. In response, the Ministry of Justice has indicated that they will call for the Prison Administration not to terminate the proceedings of submissions and to respond, irrespective of whether they are or are not withdrawn.

From the submissions received and also from the verification visits to the prisons, a conclusion has to be drawn, that the internal hierarchy of prisoners is still topical, creating moral and physical violence. … However, signals are still received from prisoners of the events of mutual violence. "

20. I recognise that this shows that in 2012 there were problems of violence both by prison staff and fellow prisoners, partly due it seems to what is described as the mutual hierarchy of prisoners. However, the CPT following its visit in September 2011 was concerned about inter-prisoner violence in particular. It observed that the problem was unlikely to be tackled effectively in prisons with large dormitories and steps should be taken to ensure that prison staff were placed in a position to exercise their authority in an appropriate manner. It called on the Latvian authorities to develop a comprehensive strategy with a view to addressing the problem of inter-prisoner violence at four named prisons (and as appropriate, in other prison establishments in Latvia), in the light of the above remarks. In the prison which housed prisoners in large dormitories, the authorities should "draw up a plan to replace its large dormitories with smaller living units."
21. Mr Summers submitted that it was significant that in its report following its visit in September 2013, the CPT did not refer to inter-prisoner violence. If no steps had been taken to deal with the recommendations made in its previous report, it would surely have dealt with the issue. Inadequate staffing levels do still exist and no doubt this could mean that there is an inability to prevent some inter-prisoner violence. But if the problem identified in 2011 continued to exist the CPT would have been expected to deal with it. And, so far as medical treatment was concerned, the latest report found improvements and an extension of medicines provided free of charge.
22. Reliance was also placed on a US Department of State Human Rights Report of 2013. It stated:-

"Prison and detention center conditions generally did not meet international standards. The government permitted visits by independent human rights observers and took some measures to remedy poor conditions in its facilities."

It does not seem that this report relied on any material other than that in what had been reported by NGOs, including the CPT, and through the ECtHR. Furthermore, it did not of course consider the report of the CPT following its visit in September 2013. The US report does not add anything of value to the available information and it is not up to date.

23. Reliance was placed by the appellants on a report from Paul Carroll, CBE, who describes himself as an independent consultant on prisons and penal affairs. He states:-

"In preparing this report it should be declared at the outset, that as author, I have no operational working knowledge of the Latvian Prison System, but given my 38 years' experience within the United Kingdom Prison Service, feel I am able to provide suitable advice and expertise."

I shall have something to say about the use of expert reports in extradition cases generally, but the opinion of such as Mr Carroll (which, since his report was prepared in December 2013, could not take account of the latest CPT report) cannot assist the court. No doubt someone to collate the relevant information will assist those advising appellants in cases such as these, but the decision based on the information available is for the court. It does not assist the court to regard him as an independent expert when he refers to appellants as clients.

24. There has been produced a report from Jelena Kvjajkovska, who is a member of the Latvian Bar and has presented a number of cases before the ECtHR on behalf of Latvian clients. She has based her report on the information published by the relevant institutions and on "personal experience of the expert [and] information provided by clients". I do not propose to go into her report in any detail since it adds nothing of value to the information available from the reports to which I have referred and the cases before the ECtHR involving Latvian prisoners. She refers to clients who had suffered violence from prison officers or police. These are not helpful since isolated attacks, which have led to criminal charges, do not show that any requested person would be at real risk of such violence.
25. In EZ's case, a report was obtained from Mr Charles Allen. He had visited Latvia on two occasions in 2005 and 2012. His visit in 2012 was to "undertake an appraisal of prison reform for which the Latvian government had applied to the Norway Grants Scheme for funding." He had visited one prison and had discussions with a range of officials. His report was concerned with women's prisons. He thought that there was 'some risk that EZ would receive treatment in contravention of her Article 3 ECHR rights', but recognised that the women's prison conditions were 'better than in the rest of the system'. His report is dated January 2013. Money has come from Norway and, as the more up to date information shows, there have been further improvements. Thus his report does not in my view take the case any further.
26. It follows from what I have so far considered that a general attack on Latvian prisons could not possibly succeed. I must now consider whether any of the three appellants present special circumstances which give rise to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. I shall deal with each in turn.
27. RB is accused of committing a number of street robberies in 2009. These were robberies with violence committed with others including one named Breuss and one named Maksimovs. Breuss had, RB said, lent him and Maksimovs money in the past which they had not repaid and Breuss had threatened them that if they went to prison they would die. Maksimovs had been extradited from Holland. On 28 August 2011 he died in prison having been electrocuted. He was found in a storeroom with the left side of his face and his left arm pressed against conductors in an electric switchboard the doors of which had been opened with the seals torn off.
28. There is a report from the judicial authority which was before District Judge Zani. This records that two prisoners who were in a nearby room watching television heard screams from the storeroom and found Maksimovs as indicated above. They tried without success to resuscitate him. There was an investigation carried out internally which decided that the death was an accident 'because no indications exist that death … would be caused by intentional illegal actions of any other person'. That conclusion is, it is submitted on RB's behalf, wholly unsatisfactory, particularly having regard to the threats made by Breuss.
29. We do not know whether Breuss was a fellow prisoner. The judicial authority stated that they would express no opinion regarding RB's fears of Breuss because 'no information regarding … Breuss and the essence of their conflict' was in their possession. They are now aware of what is said by RB. I recognise that the conclusion of the authorities is somewhat surprising, but I note there was no suggestion that Maksimovs had any marks or injuries that might have been expected if he had been dragged into the storeroom and forced against the conductors. Furthermore, no one was apparently seen by the prisoners who found him following the screaming. Despite suspicions, there is insufficient evidence to be satisfied even to a relatively low level that he was murdered, let alone that Breuss was behind it. I accept that the investigation was too perfunctory. Nevertheless, there is no proof that Breuss was involved.
30. Even if he was, there is no good reason to believe that sufficient protection would not be afforded to RB if he were extradited. The prison authorities in Latvia have said that they take seriously any concerns by a prisoner that he is vulnerable to attack by other prisoners and will provide all necessary protection. Those under risk will be transferred to other prisons. Mr Alun Jones submitted that RB's fears were likely to be regarded as fanciful since the investigation of Maksimovs' death had ruled out an attack by fellow prisoners. But the fear resulted from the threats whether or not Breuss was behind the killing and I see no good reason to believe that the authorities would not honour their promise if the full reasons for RB's fears were made clear. It is understandable that his fears are exacerbated by the death of his co-defendant but they exist independently of that.
31. No other grounds are or could be raised on RB's behalf. It follows that I would dismiss his appeal.
32. EZ is accused of stealing the equivalent of some £27,000 from a company on whose board she sat. The offence was allegedly committed in February 2009. In her evidence before the District Judge she records that she was sentenced to 3 years and 1 months' imprisonment for an offence of theft committed in 2005. She was released in July 2008 and married her husband shortly after her release. She said she had become an informant for the organisation in Latvia which was to investigate corrupt police officers and at that body's instigation had withdrawn the sum of money which she had been accused of stealing. She had been on holiday in Italy when her husband informed her he had been arrested but had managed to escape to Germany and in due course both managed to reach this country in April 2009. She had discovered that she was pregnant and she gave birth to a son V on 3 September 2009.
33. The appellant's husband is as the district judge found a career criminal. He was convicted of burglary in February 2012 and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment. He was wanted on an EAW to serve a sentence of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment in Latvia for some eleven offences including robbery, sexual assault, forgery and kidnapping. His assertion that he was an informant and so would be subjected to violent ill-treatment in prison in Latvia was for good reason rejected by District Judge Arbuthnot and he has been removed to Latvia. Equally and again for good reason the District Judge rejected the appellant's evidence that she would be vulnerable as an informant. Thus there is no real risk of treatment which would breach Article 3 and Mr Alun Jones, while not making any concessions, recognised that he would not be able to persuade us that any such risk was established.
34. V is now 4 ½ years old. The appellant asserts that to extradite her would be a disproportionate interference with her and V's Article 8 rights. The district judge adjourned a hearing on a number of occasions so that evidence could (the district judge made clear should) be obtained to see what arrangements could be made to care for V. It was only following the district judge's indication that she proposed to contact the Orphan's Court in Latvia that any proposals were made. A core assessment has been obtained from the relevant local authority. V had had to be placed in foster care in September 2009 when the appellant had been arrested for being drunk in charge of him. V is described as a happy but very boisterous child. Russian is his first language. It was said that a child in need plan was required but no specific recommendation was made. The assessment is dated 22 October 2012.
35. As is probable in all cases involving children whose parents are to be extradited, there will be hardship. The welfare of any child is a primary concern. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the obligation to comply with our treaty obligations is most important and is likely to show that despite hardship extradition must take place. V will not be able to join his mother in any prison, but he can be looked after by his grandparents in Latvia. They are very elderly but are willing to take on the burden. Further, the Orphan Court in Latvia will take any necessary steps to arrange for care should any existing arrangements prove unsatisfactory.
36. The appellant has not been regarded as a fugitive from justice. It is therefore possible that she may be granted bail in Latvia. The court there will be bound to take account of V's human rights in dealing with her. The charge she faces is serious and would clearly if committed in this country cross the custody threshold. Furthermore, she has a previous conviction which led to a substantial prison sentence. There are arrangements which can ensure that V is cared for and it seems clear that he should accompany the appellant to Latvia. Since V has no travel documents, arrangements will have to be made to ensure that he can accompany the appellant. That will need co-operation from the Latvian authorities who, if they want to ensure the appellant's extradition, will no doubt oblige.
37. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that extradition would not be disproportionate and that District Judge Arbuthnot was correct to decide as she did. I would therefore dismiss her appeal.
38. AS is accused of committing three thefts of property belonging to his mother in March and April 2009. He accepts that he had got himself into financial difficulties following his addiction to heroin and took and pawned the various articles the total value of which amounts to some £500. He says his mother has indicated that she will not pursue the charges, but there is no evidence that that intention has been notified to the Latvian authorities. While the offences are not the most serious, they are by no means trivial.
39. The appellant is HIV positive and has hepatitis C. His CD4 count, which is the measure of the progression of his HIV infection, is 301/mm?. A report obtained from Professor Peters, an expert in dealing with HIV, states that therapy should commence at a level of 350 or below. Therapy will be available in Latvia but, in accordance with the general medical regime there, such therapy is not normally given until a level of 200 is reached. Professor Peters says that this will put any person who is infected at risk of serious illness. The appellant has not yet commenced any therapy. While I recognise Professor Peters' expertise, it is not suggested that the appellant if in prison will not be treated in the same way as any person in Latvia. I do not accept that any alleged shortcomings in the overall medical regime in Latvia can establish a breach of human rights. Further, as already indicated, there will be no breach of Article 3 in the manner in which those who suffer from such conditions as the appellant will be treated in prison.
40. It must also be borne in mind that so far as medical conditions are concerned the Supreme Court has made it clear that the hurdle to be overcome to avoid removal is set at a very high level. Generally speaking, an alien cannot be permitted to remain in the UK to access medical treatment which may be better than that available in the country of his nationality. It was in addition submitted that it would be disproportionate to return NS because of a breach of his Article 8 rights. It is only in extremely rare cases that medical problems which do not establish a breach of Article 3 will mean that Article 8 prevents removal. This is not such a case and there is no other good reason to decide that there would be a breach of Article 8.
41. In the circumstances, there is no good reason to find that the appellant's extradition should be barred. I would accordingly dismiss his appeal.
42. I should say a word about the experts' reports which have been put forward. No doubt it is helpful to identify the material available in reports on prison conditions in any requesting state. That material can then be produced to the court and any relevant matters referred to in support of any submissions. The views of an expert are not relevant and probably not admissible since it is for the judge to decide on the evidence produced whether there is a real risk of any material ill-treatment. Approval should not be given to pay such experts who have no direct personal experience of the conditions in a particular country. If they do have such experience and it is relevant, they can of course give evidence of what they have observed. They may also have knowledge of the economic situation or of any views expressed by government officials which may mean that any shortcomings will not be likely to be dealt with. Thus their knowledge of the existing situation and their added knowledge of the prospects of improvements may entitle them to put forward expert opinions. But if they do not have any such expertise, they will be doing no more than giving factual evidence.
43. Finally, I should refer to case management directions given by the Chief Magistrate on 10 February 2014 in relation to prison conditions. These were given in respect of seven cases which seek to rely on prison conditions in Latvia as bars to extradition. These are due to be heard on 11 April 2014 and as a result of this decision the arguments which those seven defendants are seeking to raise can get nowhere. The Chief Magistrate has indicated that in all EAW cases, bearing in mind that the requesting state will be a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the ECHR, the court will not hear evidence challenging general prison conditions unless the defendant identifies from an internationally recognised source new factual issues that could amount to clear, cogent and compelling evidence to show that there is a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. I have no doubt that such case management is entirely appropriate and that his approach should be supported by this court. Since the directions correctly reflect the position in relation to prison conditions in member states, they will avoid a waste of court time and resources and so, whether or not they may go beyond case management, they should in my view be followed.
44. I would for the reasons given dismiss all these appeals.

Lord Justice Moses:-

45. I agree.