Prosecutor's General Office of the Republic of Latvia v Ventis Kilgasts
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NIQB 60 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 22 August 2022 |
1
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:
PROSECUTOR’S GENERAL OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA
Requesting State/Respondent
v
VENTIS KILGASTS
Requested Person/Appellant
Representation
APPELLANT: Mr Sean Devine, of counsel (instructed by Gillen & Co solicitors)
RESPONDENT: Ms Marie-Claire McDermott, of counsel (instructed by the
Crown Solicitor)
Before: McCloskey LJ and Humphreys J
McCLOSKEY LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Preamble
The court has concluded that this appeal against the order of Belfast County Court
authorising the surrender of the Appellant to Latvia must be dismissed. This
conclusion is driven fundamentally by the lack of sufficient evidential foundation
for the cornerstone of the Appellant’s resistance to extradition, namely treatment
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NIQB 60
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
McC11921
ICOS No:
22/08/2022
2
contrary to the inhuman and degrading treatment prohibition enshrined in Article 3
ECHR, contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and section 21A of the
Extradition Act 2003. This appeal has two particularly noteworthy features. First,
based on the information available, this is the first judgment of the Northern Ireland
High Court in an extradition appeal in which the post-Brexit arrangements apply.
Second, it raises certain issues, essentially of a procedural kind, relating to the
judicial role in the formulation and transmission of requests for further information
from the court of the requested state to the relevant agency of the requesting state.
Introduction
[1] The parties to this appeal are the General Prosecutor’s Office of Latvia (the
“requesting state”) and Ventis Kilgasts (the “requested person/appellant”). By its
decision Belfast County Court ordered the appellant’s surrender to the requesting
state. The appellant appeals to this court, permission having been refused by the
single judge, McFarland J. The hearing of this appeal was conducted on 26 July and
10 August 2022.
Factual Matrix
[2] In brief compass, the appellant is a national of the Republic of Latvia, aged 41
years. The European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”), which is dated 07 May 2021, seeks
his surrender to the requesting state for the purpose of serving a sentence of 25
months imprisonment, imposed upon him in that jurisdiction on 24 December 2019
arising out of his convictions in respect of drugs offences which he had admitted.
The EAW is, therefore, of the so-called “conviction” variety. It was executed on
19 July 2021 when the appellant was arrested. He has remained in custody ever
since.
[3] The more detailed factual matrix, in tandem with the nomenclature, is
agreed
between the parties and is the following:
“Mr K”: Mr Kilgasts, the Appellant.
“CPT”: The Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture.
“EAW”: European Arrest Warrant.
“HHJ”: His Honour Judge …..
“NCA”: National Crime Agency.
“RFFI”: Request for further information
18.09.90 Mr K’s date of birth
To continue reading
Request your trial