Andrejs Gurskis v Latvian Judicial Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Swift |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1751/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin)
Mr Justice Swift
Case No: CO/1751/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Anthony Vaughan (instructed by Lansbury Worthington) for the Appellant
Claire Stevenson (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 8 March 2022
Approved Judgment
A. Introduction
Mr Gurskis appeals against the extradition order made by District Judge John Zani on 12 May 2021, following a hearing that took place on 20 April 2021. Mr Gurskis is a Latvian national. His extradition is requested by the General Prosecutor's Office, Latvia pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued on 11 August 2017, which has been certified by the National Crime Agency pursuant section 2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”). The warrant is a conviction warrant. On 19 September 2014 at the Riga City Latgale Suburb Court, Mr Gurskis was convicted of possession and supply of a small quantity of heroin. The offence had been committed on or before 22 October 2013. Mr Gurskis was sentenced to 2 years 6 months in prison. The sentence was suspended for 2 years 6 months conditional on Mr Gurskis “signing in” with a probation officer every three months. The sentence was activated by the court on 24 March 2016 for breach of that condition. That order became final on 12 April 2016.
The ground of appeal advanced is that the District Judge was wrong to conclude that extradition would be a proportionate interference with Mr Gurskis' rights under ECHR article 8 and the rights of his partner RK, and their child, AG (born on 25 September 2021). For that reason, it is submitted that Mr Gurskis' extradition is prevented by section 21 of the 2003 Act. Part of the submission on this ground relies on evidence in statements made for this appeal, by Mr Gurskis dated 24 January 2022, and by RK on 5 January 2022 explaining events that have occurred since the extradition hearing.
In the course of his judgment, the District Judge made findings of fact relevant to his article 8 decision. Mr Gurskis first came to the United Kingdom in 2008 to be with his then wife and their child. (At the time of the extradition hearing that child was aged 12.) Mr Gurskis and his wife divorced in 2016, but his wife and child remain in the United Kingdom, and Mr Gurskis told the District Judge that he keeps in touch with his son.
Mr Gurskis' relationship with RK started in 2018. RK is also a Latvian national. Her evidence was to the affect that she had not lived in Latvia since she was 14 years old (she is now 35 years old), and that her mother, stepfather, brother and other immediate family all live in the United Kingdom. RK has a son from a previous relationship (JK). He is now 16 years old. In her evidence to the District Judge, RK stated that JK has a good relationship with Mr Gurskis. At the time of the extradition hearing, RK was pregnant with AG. There was also evidence before the District Judge that, since 2014, RK has suffered from depression and has been prescribed medication. At the time of the extradition hearing she was not taking that medication (she had stopped taking it when she fell pregnant). She described herself as “stable” but said that the extradition proceedings caused her stress. The District Judge concluded that Mr Gurskis was a fugitive. At paragraph 52 of this judgment he said this:
“The JA asserts – and having considered the contrary, uncorroborated testimony provided by AG, I accepted these assertions – that AG is to be treated as a fugitive from Latvian justice because I find that;
(i) He was given a limited 3-month permission to leave Latvia while subject to a Suspended Sentence, but that he did not return to Latvia when that permission expired (see Further Information supplied). I also accept what it is asserted by the JA that he did not seek later permission to remain out of Latvia;
(ii) He failed to update the Latvian court or probation services with his up to date UK (Manchester) address, thereby placing himself outside of their reach (see Further Information — letters said to have been sent to the Derby address were returned as ‘undeliverable’);
(ii) He was fully aware of the terms of his suspended sentence, which included updating his place of residence, obtaining permission to go abroad for a period exceeding 15 days, and keeping all appointments with the probation;
(iv) He confirmed his knowledge of these obligations at an early stage of the process by signing the relevant written notification (see Further Information supplied).
(v) He was warned, and was therefore well aware of, the consequences of breaching the suspended sentence (see Further Information supplied).”
When considering the article 8 submission the District Judge directed himself by reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] 2 AC 487, and the judgment of the Divisional Court in Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551. He accessed the facts of the case using the Celinski balance sheet approach.
“ 67. Article 8 Balancing Exercise:
(a) Factors said to be in Favour of Granting Extradition:
(i) There is a strong and continuing important public interest in the UK abiding by its international extradition obligations.
(ii) The seriousness of the criminal conduct in respect of which he has been convicted and sentenced. There remains a sentence of 2 years 1 months 1 day outstanding, less the 9 days spent on remand to this court before securing his release on bail.
(iii) The assertion by the Judicial Authority and the finding by this court that the requested person is a fugitive from Justice. The reasons for this finding of fugitivity are that, as mentioned at para. 51 above, I accept assertions in relation thereto made by the JA, as follows:
(a) He left jurisdiction while subject to a Suspended Sentence, and did not return when the period of his permission expired.
(b) He failed to update the Latvian court or probation services with his up to date UK address, thereby placing himself outside of their reach.
(c) He was well aware of the terms of this suspended sentence, which included updating his place of residence, obtaining permission to go abroad for a period not exceeding 15 days, and keeping all appointments with the probation; he is said to have confirmed this via a signature and breached these terms both while in Latvia and after he returned to the UK. I am satisfied that he also chose not to answer a telephone call from probation to the mobile number he had provided them with.
(d) He was clearly warned of the consequences of breaching the suspended sentence.
68. (b) Factors said to be in Favour of Refusing Extradition ( Defence Representations)
(i) AG says that he arrived in the UK in 2008 and settled here.
(ii) He adds that he has worked for most of the time that he has spent in the UK. He resides in rented accommodation with his pregnant partner, for whom he expresses concerns if extradition were to be ordered. It will also impact adversely on his son (by his previous relationship) as well as his partner's son from her previous relationship.
(iii) AG states that he has led a law-abiding life since settling in the UK
(iv) He asserts that he is not a fugitive from justice.
(v) AG submits that the criminal conduct for which return is sought is not so serious as would inevitably result in a prison sentence being imposed, if committed in the UK.
(vi) He also seeks to rely on the time that has passed since the commission of the offence as reducing the public interest in ordering extradition.”
The District Judge then stated his conclusion on article 8:
“ 69. Article 8 Findings and Ruling:
I find the it will not be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the requested person for extradition to be ordered.
My reasons and findings are as follows:
(i) It is very important for the UK to be seen to be upholding its international extradition obligations. The UK is not to be considered a ‘safe haven’ for those sought by other Convention countries either to stand trial or to serve a prison sentence.
(ii) In my opinion, the criminal conduct set out in the EAW is serious and, in the event of a conviction in the UK for like criminal conduct, a prison sentence may well be imposed.
(iii) This court finds that the requested person is a fugitive from justice. The reasons for this finding are that it accepts the assertions made by the JA that he failed to abide by the conditions attached to his suspended sentence (see above).
(iv) It is appreciated that there will be hardship caused to AG, his pregnant partner and, to a lesser extent to his son (from whom he is separated) and her son by her earlier relationship. However, as counsel will be aware hardship itself is not sufficient to prevent an order for extradition from being made. AG's partner has a large number of family members living very close to her and she maintains a close relationship with her mother. I am confident that, if necessary, her family will rally round to offer such assistance as may be required. [RK] is in receipt of appropriate benefits and there is no reason to consider that these will reduce were extradition to take place. Furthermore the £2000 case security will be returned on the understanding that AG surrenders himself as and when required. [RK] came across as an intelligent, resourceful and determined woman who would seek such assistance as was available (whether from family, her doctor or Social Services) to assist her in the event that extradition were to be ordered.
(v) I have also given careful consideration to the Brexit uncertainty for AG (as to whether or not he may be able to return to the UK...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ionut-Bogdan Merticariu v Judecatoria Arad, Romania
...in two more recent decisions of Linden J in Piekarski v Poland [2022] EWHC 1088 (Admin) and of Swift J in Gurskis v Latvia [2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin), by which time the likely immigration position of those extradited without settled status had become a little 53 In Piekarski, Linden J noted......
-
Barbara Murawska v District Court Koszalin, Poland
...87 I note that Swift J came to essentially the same view on this point, albeit obiter, in Gurskis v Latvian Judicial Authority [2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin) at 88 My conclusion on this issue means that I need not enter into the question of how to approach so called “Brexit uncertainty” which is......
-
Leszek Robert Gomulka v Poland
...the Judge as a complete answer. 26 Two authorities were cited to me: Pink v Poland [2021] EWHC 1238 (Admin) and Gurskis v Latvia [2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin). In Pink (at §34) the requested person had relied on difficulties he might face in coming back to the UK after serving his sentence in ......
-
Sylwester Hojden v District Court, Gorzow, Wielkopolski, Poland
...1238 (Admin); Piekarski v District Court in Lublin, Poland [2022] [EWHC] 1088 (Admin); and Gurskis v Latvian National Authority [2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin). 52 Whilst the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union, it was subject to Directive 2004/A/EC) on Citizens' Free Movement. In t......