Petrovs v Riga City Suburb Court (Latvia)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Stephen Silber |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 144 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/5798/2014 |
| Date | 14 January 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 144 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Sir Stephen Silber
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
CO/5798/2014
The Appellant did not appear and was not represented
Mr T Cadman (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Alexander Petrovs appeals against an order made by District Judge Coleman at the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 3 December 2014 to order the extradition of the Appellant pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Prosecutor General's Office in the Republic of Latvia on 11 September 2013 and which was certified by the National Crime Agency on 17 October 2013.
The warrant seeks to enforce decisions ordering for the Appellant's request for two allegations, the first being one of theft or burglary of jewellery valued at about £300 on 20 April 2008 between 30 and 31 January 2008 in which the Appellant and another entered a jewellery shop. They went to an area confined for permanent and temporary valuables, mainly storage facilities, and used a device adopted for the commission of the offence to steal these items.
The second offence for which his extradition is sought is the theft of two wing mirrors from a Mercedes motor car on 1 April 2011. It is said to have happened when the Appellant was under the influence of drugs. The loss to the complainant is said to be about £500.
The Appellant resisted his extradition on the grounds that it would constitute an interference with his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
He was first produced at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 28 October 2013. The proceedings were adjourned because the Appellant was serving a sentence of 22 months imposed on him at Blackfriars Crown Court for offences of robbery for which he received a sentence of 16 months and burglary for which he received a consecutive sentence of 6 months.
There was a contested hearing in front of the District Judge. The District Judge noted that the Appellant had been candid in his proof, giving details of his offending history and drug abuse in Latvia, which was long standing. It is noted that since he has been in the United Kingdom he has accumulated an unenviable list of convictions, his first being cautioned for theft on 1 October 2012. He has then been to court for offences of theft and burglary on six more occasions. He has been sentenced to prison on three occasions. He has no home or family in the United Kingdom.
His Article 3 case is based on the fact that he fears retribution from a gang called "the Japanese" and was described by the Appellant as being ruthless and violent. The District Judge noted the fear expressed was very vague and general and he heard no evidence on which he could reach any conclusions that the Latvian authorities would not be willing or able to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
Mr Cadman who appears on behalf of the Respondent accepts the test of the court in considering an Article 3 breach of this sort was set out in Krolik v Poland [2012] EWHC 2357 (Admin) by the President of the Queen's Bench Division, who then was Sir John Thomas.
It has been more recently repeated in Brazuks v Latvia [2014] EWHC 1021 at paragraph 4:
i. "In assessing whether there may be a breach of Article 3, the approach which must be applied has been considered in a number of cases. A very strong case must be established to show that there would be a real risk that the requested person would be subjected to treatment which would breach his or her rights in that he or she would suffer torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Latvia, in common with all states which can use the EAW procedure, is a signatory to the ECHR and a member of the Council of Europe. Accordingly, it would take very strong and cogent evidence to show that Latvia or any requesting state within the EU was not willing or able to fulfil; its obligations under the Conventions. A number of cases have referred to a presumption that states will comply with their Convention obligations which will have to be overcome by evidence in a particular case. In one of the most recent cases, Aleksynas & Others v Lithuania [2014] EWHC 437 (Admin), Jay J, who was sitting with Moses LJ, said in paragraph 98:
ii. "Perhaps the better way of expressing the matter is that the Appellants face the legal burden of proving that the requesting state would not fulfil its obligations under the Convention, and that the threshold is a relatively high one ('strong grounds for...
To continue reading
Request your trial