Jansons v Latvia
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Anthony May,Dobbs J |
| Judgment Date | 18 March 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/8590/2008 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 18 March 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin)
Sir Anthony May (President of the Queen's Bench Division)
Mrs Justice Dobbs
CO/8590/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Miss R Kapila (instructed by Claude Horby & Cox) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Miss R Davidson (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
: The court is very frequently, as it happens, addressed by advocates to the effect that a case is unusual. It happens in almost every case that comes before the court. This really is, in my view, not only a most unusual case but in one respect I think exceptional.
The appellant whose extradition to Latvia on a Category 1 European Arrest Warrant was duly ordered by Senior District Judge Workman on 4th September 2008 in the Westminster City Magistrates' Court, seeks to appeal that decision, not for any alleged error that the District Judge may have made, but because on the very following day, he attempted to commit suicide in Wormwood Scrubs Prison. Not only did he attempt to do so but he very nearly succeeded. He says, or it is said on his behalf, that his suicide attempt was a reaction by a mentally depressed and unstable person to his then imminent extradition to Latvia and it is said on his behalf that although he largely recovered from the immediate physical effects of his very serious suicide attempt and his condition in prison has been managed by doctors and others so as to avoid a further suicide attempt so far, uncontested psychiatric evidence says that if he is to be extradited to Latvia, he will commit suicide. The report says that in terms or, at least, one supposes, make every effort to do so.
These facts are necessarily evidence which was unavailable at the extradition hearing. That is obviously correct and it is said that if those facts had been available to the District Judge, he would have decided the question differently and ordered the appellant's discharge accordingly upon that argument. The court has the jurisdiction to allow the appeal and order his discharge.
He says that he should be discharged under section 21 and/or 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, there being no point now in waiting to see if the serious risk of suicide will recede or go away. That point going to the possibility of an adjournment under section 25 which is not suggested by either party.
This appeal came before the court on 21st January 2009 when it was adjourned, as I at least then understood for the respondent to respond to the psychiatric evidence that was then recently available on behalf of the appellant. I have to say that I understood, although Mr Lloyd suggests that this was perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding, that the expectation was that responding psychiatric evidence might be sought. There is no responding psychiatric evidence. On the contrary, there is an addendum report from the original psychiatrist who confirms his original opinion.
There is, however, some general written material from Latvia to the effect that, if the appellant is extradited, he may qualify for bail, or if not, that the Latvian prison authorities have medical and other arrangements properly in place, which will continue, so I suppose, the kind of treatment which the appellant has been having in Wormwood Scrubs and will, if necessary, restrain him from suicide or self-harm, or at least do everything that is possible so to do.
On the other hand, as Dyson LJ said in the case of J v Secretary of State for the Home Department“someone who is sufficiently determined to do so can usually commit suicide.” On the other hand, this court will not lightly conclude that a threat of suicide is sufficiently grave and likely to be carried out successfully, so that what would otherwise be the due process of extradition under international arrangements should not take place.
Section 21 of the 2003 Act requires a judge at an extradition hearing to decide whether the person's extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. If the judge decides that extradition would not be so compatible, he must order the person's discharge. Section 25 applies if the person's physical or mental condition is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. If so, the judge must order the person's discharge or adjourn the hearing to see if his condition improves. As I say, Mr Lloyd, on behalf of the respondent, does not suggest that an adjournment would be a suitable way of the court dealing with the problem in this case.
There is a considerable and, to some extent, unsatisfactory lack of evidence in this case. Lack of evidence in this respect, that although the psychiatric report contains certain material as to what the appellant says is the cause or a cause of his mental condition, and where certain descriptions are at secondhand given of treatment that he has historically, according to him, received in Latvia, there is no systematic evidence at all to support a detailed case that treatment in Latvia, other than in prison, might be serious or the subject of a possible case under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That case, as it were, is in the background but it is not supported by systematic evidence.
There are points to be made about consistency and so forth of the material that is reported in the psychiatrist's report. There are by contrast also points to be made to the effect that the material from Latvia is of an entirely general nature and does not address the kind of treatment which the appellant would receive in a Latvian prison, so as to address the particular problem which the psychiatric evidence discloses in this case. In short, the court is faced with a stark decision, unsupported by detailed and systematic evidence. I think it is fair to say on both sides.
The European Arrest Warrant concerns two offences of theft, one of which by description might be characterised as burglary. The offences are stated to have occurred within a week of each other, in May 2007. In the first of them the appellant is alleged to have stolen a mobile phone worth 277 Lats, having entered a property to do so. In the second of them he is alleged to have stolen a mobile phone worth 45 Lats upon what looks to be more conventional theft grounds alone. The total value of the property is stated to be 344 Lats and Miss Kapila tells us is current exchange rates that total value is of the order of £450.
Some proportionality case is suggested in relation to these offences, the theft of two mobile phones and extradition which it is said will lead to suicide. In response to that, Mr Lloyd submits that these are nothing like trivial offences and he also points out that material from Latvia indicates that the appellant has previous convictions and on three occasions has served what is referred to as a liberty deprivation. No doubt he was sent to prison and details are given of that. Accordingly, in my view, we are not concerned with trivial offences. We are not on the other hand concerned with the kind of offences that concern injury or serious attacks on individuals.
Highlights of the psychiatrist's first report are as follows. He describes how the appellant hanged himself with his bed sheets on 5th September 2008 in his cell at Wormwood Scrubs Prison. The nurses who found him were unsure how long he had been hanging when he was found. He was given cardio pulmonary resuscitation as he had no pulse. He was given two cycles of resuscitation with adrenalin and gained a cardiac output. The prison doctor attempted incubation but failed. He achieved ventilation and oxygenation with a laryngeal mask. He was then taken to the emergency department of Charing Cross Hospital where he was intubated to secure an airway on his arrival and taking the matter shortly, he was admitted to the intensive care unit and received continuous ventilation. He remained there for some days and eventually was reviewed by an ear, nose and throat team with a view to excluding significant laryngeal pharyngeal swelling. By day nine he was fully conscious. He was discharged from the intensive care unit at 12.30 pm on 15th September 2008, that is to say 10 days after his suicide attempt and sent to a high dependency unit in Charing Cross Hospital. He was discharged from hospital and admitted to the health care centre of Wormwood Scrubs on 23rd September 2008.
I read that as a serious attempt at suicide in prison which very nearly succeeded. He was seen by doctors on a number of occasions including on 23rd October 2008, when he was stable but isolating himself and when he said that he tried to kill himself to avoid extradition to Latvia. He was on that occasion not very forthcoming. He said that he had continuing ideas of self-harm and suicide but did not have any at the moment of that particular occasion. He continued to be reviewed throughout November. He was kept on a gated cell in protective clothing and advised to continue his medication. He appears, broadly speaking at least, to have done so.
The psychiatrist's conclusions and recommendations included that the appellant was currently fit to attend court proceedings. This is in the January report. He currently suffers from depression and he became depressed before his extradition hearing on 4th September 2008. It was highly likely that he was despondent and hopeless, believing he would definitely be sent back to Latvia to serve a possible prison sentence of up to 10 years. He suffered from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform v Machaczka
...136 MIN FOR JUSTICE v R (SM) 2008 2 IR 242 2007/41/8454 2007 IESC 54 JANSONS v RIGA DISTRICT COURT, LATVIA 2009 AER (D) 192 (MAR) 2009 EWHC 1845 (ADMIN) EXTRADITION ACT 2003 S21 (UK) EXTRADITION ACT 2003 S25 (UK) WROBEL v POLAND 2011 AER (D) 10 (MAR) 2011 EWHC 374 (ADMIN) HOWES v HM ADVOCAT......
-
I Polish Judicial Authority v Mariusz Wolkowicz (Alias Del Ponti)
...Kwietniewski v Circuit Court in Tarnobrzeg, Poland [2008] EWHC 3121 (Admin), Spanovic v Government of Croatia [2009] EWHC 723 (Admin), Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin), Howes v HM Advocate [2009] HCJAC 94, (2010) SLT 337, Prosser v Secretary of State [2010] EWHC 845 (Admin), Rot v ......
-
HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa
...being (said Leveson LJ at para 21) "truly exceptional" and from which "nobody should seek to derive any wider principles". There is Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin): the defendant was accused of thefts to a value of about £450 and would commit suicide if extradited. Now, today in ......
-
Mugurel Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania
...provides for a less onerous test than the Convention in cases such as this. 51 The cases on which Mr Grandison relied, and in particular Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin), were cited and referred to in Wolkowicz. The judgment of the court in Wolkowicz, took account of a large body ......
-
Challenging the European Arrest Warrant
...CD 67. [2007] EWHC 2983. Para. 57. Norris v Government of the United States of America [2008] UKHL 16, para. 56. Ibid., paras. 64–5. [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin). [2010] EWHC 1047 [2010] EWHC 1184 (Admin). [2009] WL 6567. [2010] EWHC 999 (Admin). Another recent case where a challenge under Arti......
-
European Arrest Warrant
...twice the minimum specified in section 64(3)(c), and it was an offence which would warrant prosecution in the UK. Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin) The appellant appealed against a decision of a district judge ordering his extradition for the theft of two mobile phones. The day afte......
-
Shrien Dewani: A Guideline Case On Extradition And Mental Health?
...posed in advising a client suffering from mental health concerns. Opening the floodgates: Jansons v Latvia In Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin), the appellant's extradition on a Category 1 European Arrest Warrant was ordered by the then Senior District Judge Timothy Workman. The fol......