[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 >> Zvaricovics, R (On the Application Of) v Prosecutor General Office Republic of Latvia [2014] EWHC 3892 (Admin) (27 October 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/3892.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 3892 (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
		27 October 2014

1. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: This is an appeal by a 25-year old Latvian against a decision of District Judge Devas on 19 August of this year at the Westminster Magistrates Court. The District Judge ordered the appellant's extradition to Latvia on a conviction European Arrest Warrant. That had been issued in February 2012 and certified by the National Crime Agency in March of this year.
2. The warrant seeks the appellant's extradition to serve a sentence of imprisonment of four years, 11 months and 28 days in respect of an offence of buying and storing methamphetamine with the intent to supply this to others for sale.
3. The warrant sets out Section 253 of the Latvian Penal Code. Section 253(2) provides that if a group of persons by prior engagement commit the offence, there will be a minimum mandatory sentence of five years and a maximum sentence not exceeding 12 years.
4. The Latvian court imposed the sentence on 6 December 2011, the offending having occurred in 2009. In box E, the warrant sets out the offending. The appellant and his brother engaged in the conspiracy. It says:

"Both were selling the psychotropic substance to other persons until 23 March 2009. At 10.45 the prohibited substance during the search was found and seized."

5. Before the District Judge, the appellant gave evidence. He explained how he left Latvia. On his account, he had been threatened by persons who had wanted him to take drugs to prison where he was to serve his sentence. He explained that he then came to this country in 2009 and obtained employment. He then established a relationship with a partner but they split up in 2013 and he moved to Wolverhampton. In his proof, he conceded that he had relapsed into drug taking but he said that when in prison, he had addressed it by undertaking a detox programme.
6. The District Judge dealt with the one point raised on his behalf, namely Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by setting out extracts from the leading authorities Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] UKSC 9 and HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25, in particular Lady Hale's well-known summation of principle at paragraph 8. The judge then said that there was "nothing striking about the family life of this particular requested person" and a few sentences later, that the circumstances "come nowhere near the very high threshold required before it could be said that the balancing exercise should be determined in the requested person's favour".
7. On the appellant's behalf, Ms O'Raghallaigh submits, in cogent and attractively put submissions that the judge mis-stated the test. Too high a test was encapsulated in the words of the District Judge which I have quoted.
8. Secondly, she submitted, that applying the learning, particularly as summarised in paragraph 8 of Lady Hale's decision in HH, the balancing exercise came down in favour of this appellant. The offending, though serious, was not at the high level which the sentence might suggest. The amount of drugs involved, namely 0.8455 grams, was relatively small. In this country, she submitted, the appropriate sentence would probably fall within the range of 18 months to three and a half years imprisonment since, under the Sentencing Council guideline this would be a category 4 case with the appellant occupying a significant or lesser role. He would also obtain credit for his guilty plea.
9. Further, Ms O'Raghallaigh highlighted the lack of previous offending by this appellant. His record in this country showed only one offence of theft, that occurring after he had split up with his girlfriend and moved to Wolverhampton. It involved a theft when he was without any resources. She also pointed out that the judge had made no finding that the appellant was a fugitive, albeit that this was not a section 14 case where the judge would have been driven to make a finding on that matter one way or the other.
10. Finally, Ms O'Raghallaigh pointed to the family life he had enjoyed in the past and the private life which he enjoyed in this country from 2009. The appellant had been in employment most of that time, he had improved himself, he was still a relatively young man, and certainly a young man at the time of the offending. Applying the test laid down by the authorities, it could not be said that it was appropriate for him to be extradited.
11. In my view, the appeal should be dismissed. It is perhaps unfortunate, as Ms Hill for the respondent conceded, that the District Judge expressed himself in the way he did. However, given the public interest in extradition, in any Article 8 case a requested party has to demonstrate what could be put in colloquial terms as "a pretty strong case". In this case there was, in my view, serious wrongdoing. It was a conspiracy and in conspiracies the amount of drugs actually seized are not necessarily indicative of the nature and extent of the conspiracy. The passage in the warrant which I quoted suggested that this was an ongoing conspiracy, albeit that when the police swooped, only a small amount of drugs was found.
12. Be that as it may, the level of the sentence, five years, indicates the seriousness which the Latvian authorities attach to this type of offending. It is not for us to delve too deeply into what this sort of offending would attract in this country vis a vis what the Latvian court imposed. I accept the point that the appellant has had a family life in this country but that does not continue with his ex-partner. There is his private life, evident through his employment record, but it seems to me that it is not disproportionate he should be extradited.
13. The delay involved is not substantial and he left Latvia knowing matters were outstanding, albeit on his account that he was subject to threats. It cannot be said that he built up any false sense of security. He knew that he had been sentenced to a substantial sentence of imprisonment and left the country.
14. In those circumstances the District Judge reached the right result.