Kudzevica v Riga Circuit Court Latvia
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE OWEN |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 3505 (Admin) |
| Date | 20 December 2010 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/8635/2010 |
[2010] EWHC 3505 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: Mr Justice Owen
CO/8635/2010
Mr Julian Atlee appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Myles Grandison appeared on behalf of the Respondent
MR JUSTICE OWEN: This is an appeal under section 26(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 against an extradition order made in relation to the appellant, Sandija Kudzevica, in the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 11 August 2010.
The Extradition order was made pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued by the Riga Circuit Court, Latvia, the respondent judicial authority, on 7 October 2008. The European arrest warrant was based on the judgment of the judicial authority which on 25 June 2007 imposed a sentence of eight years' imprisonment on the appellant in relation to four offences equivalent to conspiracy to purchase and supply Class A drugs and possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply in September/October 2004. The appellant was remanded in custody by the judicial authority on 12 October 2004, but released on bail on 8 December 2004. It follows that seven years and two months of her sentence remain to be served.
On 28 April 2009, the warrant was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency and executed at 6 am on 29 August 2010, the appellant being arrested at her home in Portsmouth. On the following day, 30 April, she was produced at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, and at that hearing the district judge found there had been compliance with section 4 of the 2003 Act, namely that she had been brought before an appropriate judge as soon as was practicable. The full extradition hearing took place on 23 June, judgment being handed down on 11 August.
Three points were taken before the district judge at the substantive hearing. First, it was submitted that the appellant had not been brought before the appropriate judge as soon as was practicable, and the district judge was, therefore, invited to revisit the decision that had been made at the initial hearing. Secondly, it was contended that extradition would be in breach of the Article 3 rights and, thirdly, that extradition would breach the appellant's Article 8 rights.
By her grounds of appeal, the appellant contends that the district judge erred in law in his conclusions on each of those issues. As to the question of whether it was open to the district judge at the substantive hearing to revisit the decision made at the preliminary stage of the proceedings, as recently as last Thursday, 16 December, that issue was considered by the divisional court in Stunjuk v The Circuit Court in Catavici.
I have a copy of a Lawtel extract, helpfully provided by Mr Atlee, and it appears that there is not as yet a neutral citation for the report. But the Divisional Court confirmed the decision by the district judge that he had no power to reopen section 4 issues after the end of the initial hearing. As a result, that point was no longer pursued by Mr Atlee.
The second issue was the Article 3 challenge. Her challenge is based upon her evidence as to the physical conditions in the Latvia prisons, based upon the two months that she had spent in custody and, secondly, upon her fear of being the subject of attack in prison as a consequence of it being public knowledge that she had agreed to act as an informant for the police.
Two points arise. First, Mr Justice Mitting has recently held in a sequence of cases, see in particular Dabkowski v The District Court in Gorzow [2010] EWHC 1712...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa
...para 7; Smuda v District Court of Poznan, Poland [2011] EWHC 2734 Admin), para 7. A similar approach can be detected in Kudzevica v Riga Circuit Court Latvia [2010] EWHC 3505 (Admin), paras 11 and 12, and R(Gorczowska) v District Court in Torun, Poland [2012] EWHC 378 (Admin), paras 11 an......
-
Stanislav Dzgoev v Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation
...of Art 3". He referred to evidence about medical facilities in Russian prisons and noted the decision of Ouseley J in Mikolajczyk [2010] EWHC 3505 (Admin). He concluded his judgment thus: " Having reminded myself of the judgment inOthman v UK [2009] UKHL 10and having considered all the evid......