Kalniets v District Court of Ogre, Latvia [Administrative Court]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 March 2009 |
| Date | 03 March 2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Administrative Court, CO/10705/2008
Goldring LJ, Sweeney J
D Jones (instructed by Dass Solicitors) for K; J Jones (instructed by CPS, Extradition Unit) for the Latvian Judicial Authority.
Whether K's extradition was barred because Latvian prison conditions breached Art 3 ECHR; whether fresh evidence was admissible on appeal to the High Court.
A Latvian judicial authority sought K's extradition for murder pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. At the extradition hearing, K gave evidence to the effect that he feared for his safety if returned to a Latvian prison, based on his past experience. The District Judge ordered his extradition, rejecting his evidence, and finding that extradition was compatible with K's human rights. He appealed to the High Court, claiming that his extradition was incompatible with his rights under Art 3 ECHR, in that prison conditions in Latvia amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. K sought to rely on fresh evidence not adduced before the District Judge.
Goldring LJ:
1. Sweeney J will give the first judgment of the court.
Sweeney J:
Introduction
2. This is an appeal against an order of District Judge Purdy, sitting at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 3 November 2008, that the appellant, Roman Kalniets, aged 24, be extradited to Latvia in order to face a prosecution for murder, pursuant to s21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act").
3. The order followed a contested hearing, during which the appellant gave evidence to the effect, amongst other things, that he feared for his safety if, in the future, he was to be held in custody in a Latvian prison. The learned District Judge rejected the appellant's evidence as unimpressive. He found as a fact that there were no human rights risks to the appellant if he was to be returned to Latvia.
4. The sole ground upon which this appeal is now pursued is that the appellant's extradition would be contrary to s21 of the 2003 Act, in that there is a real risk that the appellant's rights under Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached by the prison conditions that he is likely to be exposed to in Latvia if extradited, on the basis that it is likely that aspects of those conditions will amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
5. In support of this ground, the appellant seeks to rely upon 2 pieces of fresh evidence as follows:
(1) An expert report by Marina Dombrovksa dated 20 February 2009, together with an addendum dated 26 February 2009.
(2) A report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture on a visit to Latvia in 2004.
Despite the late arrival of this fresh evidence, there is no application for an adjournment of this argument by the respondent, but both the application to adduce the evidence and the appeal itself are opposed.
Background
6. The District Court of Ogre, a Latvian judicial authority, seeks the appellant's extradition for an offence of murder contrary to s116 of Latvian criminal law, pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued on 16 April 2008, and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 9 May 2008. Latvia is a Category 1 territory under the 2003 Act. Accordingly, Part I of the Act applies to these proceedings. Latvia is a member of the EU, and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
7. The arrest warrant alleges that the appellant murdered one Mihails Mihalkins on 6 December 2006 in the following terms:
"On 6 December 2006, in the flat of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoholm v Government of Norway
...decisions of this Court in Szombathely City Court and Others v Fenyvesi and Fenyvesi[2009] Extradition LR 143 and Kalniets v Latvia[2009] Extradition LR 153. Discussion 14. The procedural issue raised on this appeal is by no means straightforward. We did not have a transcript or note of the......
-
Sondy v Crown Prosecution Service
...to adduce further evidence was made by the requesting state. The later case of Kalniets v District Court of Ogre in Latvia[2009] Extradition LR 153 made clear that the same principles apply to applications by the person ordered to be extradited. Indeed, in that case an attempt was made to a......
-
Soltysiak v Judicial Authority of Poland
...matter to be raised for the first time on appeal and referred to the Fenyvesi case and the subsequent decision in Kalniets v Latvia[2009] Extradition LR 153. Stanley Burnton LJ said that the procedural issue, as he described it, did not appear to have been decided before. After referring to......