General Prosecutor's Office of Latvia and Maris Ancevskis and in the matter of an application by Maris Ancevskis for leave to apply for Judicial Review [Latvia v Ancevskis No.2]
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NIKB 21 |
| Date | 22 February 2023 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NIKB 21
Approved by the court for handing down subject
to editorial corrections
Ref: McC12079
ICOS: 20/79516/A02
Delivered: 22/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE DIVISION OF BELFAST
___________
BETWEEN:
GENERAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF LATVIA
Respondent/Interested Party
and
MARIS ANCEVSKIS
Appellant/Applicant
and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MARIS ANCEVSKIS
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
___________
[Latvia v Ancevskis No.2]
___________
Mr Tony McGleenan KC and Mr Stephen Ritchie (instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s
Office) for the Respondent/Interested Party
Mr John Larkin KC and Mr Joseph O’Keeffe (instructed by Tiernans Solicitors) for the
Appellant/Applicant
Ms Marie-Claire McDermott (instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office) for the
Respondent to the Judicial Review
___________
Before: McCloskey LJ, Horner LJ and Fowler J
___________
2
McCLOSKEY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
INDEX
Subject Paragraph No
Introduction 1
Ancevskis No 1 2-3
Subsequently 4-6
This Appeal 7-10
Some English decisions 11-15
The Section 29 issue 16
The Procedural Dimension of article 8 ECHR 17-22
The out-workings of the above 23-44
Conclusion and Order 45
Introduction
[1] In these extradition appeal proceedings the General Prosecutor’s Office of
Latvia acts on behalf of the requesting state, while the requested person is Marius
Ancevskis (“the Appellant”).
Ancevskis No 1
[2] This is the second appeal to this court in this case. In General Prosecutor’s
Office of Latvia v Ancevskis [2021] NIQB 116 (“Ancevskis No 1”) the appealing party
was the requesting state. The history, a regrettably protracted one, is rehearsed at
para [4] in the following terms:
“[4] It is convenient at this juncture to rehearse certain
key dates and events:
(a) 24 September 2003: date of first offence.
(b) 4 December 2003: sentenced to two years
imprisonment, suspended for two years in respect of
(a).
(c) 8 November 2005: date of the second offence in the
sequence, namely driving a vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol.
(d) 30 November 2005: the requested person is alleged
to have admitted the second offence. By a judicial
restraint measure he was required to obtain the
To continue reading
Request your trial