General Prosecutors Office of Latvia and Marius Ancevskis
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NIQB 116 |
| Date | 10 December 2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NIQB 116
Transcribed ex tempore Judgment: approved by the Court for
handing down (subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11647
ICOS No:
Delivered: 10/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
QUEEN’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 PROSECUTORS OFFICE OF LATVIA
Appellant:
-and-
MARIUS ANCEVSKIS
Respondent:
___________
Representation
APPELLANT: Mr Tony McGleenan QC and Mr Stephen Ritchie, of counsel (instructed by
the Crown Solicitor’s Office)
RESPONDENT: Mr John Larkin QC and Mr Joseph O’Keefe, of counsel (instructed by
Tiernans Solicitors)
___________
Before: McCloskey LJ and Humphreys J
___________
McCLOSKEY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] The parties to this appeal are the General Prosecutor’s Office, Latvia (the
“requesting state”) and Marius Ancevskis (the “requested person”), appellant and
respondent respectively. The requesting state appeals to this court with the
permission of the single judge, McFarland J. The hearing of this appeal was
conducted on 4 November 2021. Having reserved judgement, the court gave
directions for further written submissions. These have been received and the court
acknowledges the quality of what has been provided. The main issue on which the
court sought additional argument appears at [22]ff infra.
[2] The requested person is a national of the Republic of Latvia, aged 41 years.
The European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) dated 25 September 2018 seeks the surrender
of the requested person to the requesting state for the purpose of serving two
sentences of imprisonment totalling two years and four months, imposed upon him
in that jurisdiction on 04 December 2003 and 25 October 2016. The two offences of
which he was convicted are hooliganism and driving a vehicle without a licence and
while under the influence of alcohol. The EAW is, therefore, of the so-called
“conviction” variety. It was executed on 18 November 2020 when the requested
person was arrested. He remained in custody until granted bail by the County
Court for the Division of Belfast on 2 June 2021.
[3] By its decision dated 16 September 2021 the judge of the County Court
determined as follows:
“After due consideration of the totality of the evidence I have
concluded that it would not be compatible with the (requested
person’s) human rights [to be extradited] and so in
compliance with section 21 of the 2003 Act I order that the
(requested person) should, therefore, be discharged.”
That is the decision under appeal to this court. As will become apparent, this
decision was based exclusively on Article 8 ECHR.
Chronology
[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
consent of the court if proposing to alter his place of residence.
(e) December 2005 to April 2006: two court listings and two adjournments.
(f) 15 May 2006: the requested person left Latvia without the permission of the
court and travelled to Northern Ireland.
(f) 17 May 2006: the requested person failed to attend court in Latvia.
(g) 12 December 2006: First EAW issued, for the purpose of prosecuting the
requested person for the second offence (supra).
(h) 31st January 2013: Requested Person is arrested in respect of the first EAW
and is remanded in custody.
(i) 10th May 2013: Requested Person’s is released on bail having served 3 months
and 10 days in custody.
(j) 21 June 2013: order of the County Court discharging the requested person in
respect of the first EAW on the ground that the requirement of dual
criminality was not satisfied.
(k) 25 October 2016: requested person is convicted in his absence in Latvia for the
second offence.
(l) 25 September 2018: issuing of the subject EAW.
(m) 18 November 2020: execution of the subject EAW by arrest of the requested
person in Crossmaglen.
(n) 2 June 2021: grant of bail.
(o) 16 September 2021: decision of the County Court Judge under appeal.
(p) 23 September 2021: order of this court granting the requesting state
permission to appeal.
Statutory Framework
[5] The statutory regime governing extradition hearings and appeals has been
rehearsed extensively in recent decisions of this court: see in particular Dusevicius v
Republic of Lithuania [2021] NIQB 60 at [66] – [71]. In the context of the present
appeal there are four particularly significant provisions of the Extradition Act 2003
(the “2003 Act”):
“S 11 Bars to extradition
(In material part)
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
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]
...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......
-
Prosecutor's General Office of the Republic of Latvia v Ventis Kilgasts
...4 of the Charter. Extradition Post – Brexit [10] As this court observed at para [68] of its recent decision in Latvia v Ancevskis [2021] NIQB 116 (promulgated on 10 December 2021), by virtue of the date of execution of the EAW in that case, 18 November 2020, both the Framework Decision and ......