R B v Republic of Latvia
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Collins |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1265 (Admin) |
| Date | 26 April 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4319/2013 |
[2013] EWHC 1265 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Collins
CO/4319/2013
Mr M Grandison (instructed by {"Claimant Solicitor}) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr N Hearn (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the ruling of District Judge Snow given on 10 April 2013 directing the appellant's return to Latvia to face two accusation charges. Both of these involve sexual misconduct in one case against his 2-year old daughter, and in the other, his 1-year old niece. It is not necessary to go into any detail; suffice it to say from what I have indicated it is obvious that these are serious allegations.
The basis upon which the extradition was contested was two-fold before the District Judge. First it was asserted that his mental state was such that he was a very high suicide risk and that his extradition to Latvia would mean that there was a very high risk indeed that he would at the very least attempt suicide and that that attempt might well succeed. Reliance was placed upon psychiatric evidence obtained, both in this country and from a Latvian psychiatrist which was said to support that view of his ideation.
In addition, there was a discrete argument based upon Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the conditions in prison in Latvia were such that not only would they not prevent any suicide attempt but would, if anything, be conducive to such an attempt having regard in particular to the fact that the appellant had, and the District Judge accepted his evidence in this regard, been raped when in prison in Latvia on a previous occasion and, as a result, suffered from HIV. That argument was assisted by evidence from a lady from Latvia who was said to be an expert and gave evidence before the District Judge about the conditions in prisons, from reports of visits from the relevant body sent by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and also a report from the United States which was dated in 2011.
Against that, there was evidence before the District Judge from the Latvian prosecuting authority as a result of the issues that had been raised which, in effect, indicated that whatever may have been the defects before, the situation now was that proper care was available and that proper steps would be taken to ensure that the appellant would not be able to commit suicide, he would be kept on the necessary watch and in the necessary conditions.
Unfortunately for the appellant, the expert from Latvia fell apart under cross-examination and unsurprisingly the District Judge felt unable to accept her evidence. As a result, very sensibly, Mr Grandison has not sought to maintain the discrete Article 3 ground in this appeal. He relies upon the very high risk that there will be a suicide attempt. He relies upon findings of fact favourable to the appellant made by the District Judge. There is a record of his conduct, particularly when he was arrested in this country. There was what appeared to be a serious suicidal attempt. He displayed curious to say the least conduct. He attempted to drink from the lavatory in his cell, he urinated and then was found sitting in the urine. He showed, as Dr Walters indicated, that he had such a personality as meant that he presented in a compulsive manner without due consideration for the consequences. However, Dr Walters the psychiatrist said she was firmly of the view that at present his risk of suicide was low/medium and was not independently arising from his personality disorder, but was driven by the threat of extradition.
The primary reason why he was fearful of returning to a Latvian prison was that he claimed to have been raped and acquired his HIV infection there in the past. She was firmly of the view that if he received news that he would be extradited back to Latvia, the risk of suicide would escalate and he would try to make an attempt on taking his own life.
He lost his appeal before the District Judge. There is no direct evidence that he has made any specific attempt at suicide since the failure of his case before the District Judge. However, it is fair to say that no doubt he was aware that he had a right of appeal which was pursued against that decision.
It is important to bear in mind that there is no question but that he has a personality which means that he exhibits features of the disorder. That is, an inability to act always in a sensible fashion and he is likely to behave in an irrational way. That is because it seems that his mother was an alcoholic and he suffered a degree of brain damage in utero as a result. His personality, according to the report from the Latvian psychiatrist shown that he had a tendency to be egocentric, self-righteous with a weak and unstable sphere of willpower. He was unstable in stressful situations. His behaviour, it was put, was situation-based, aimed at satisfying his actual wishes and needs or to avoid punishment. All this showed that he was incapable of controlling his future actions and unable to organise his life independently and assess the consequences of his actions and maintain relationships with others. All this led to the conclusion which I have already referred to from Dr Walters.
The District Judge found in his favour in relation to his having an organic personality disorder. He had attempted suicide five times in Latvia because, once he learnt that he was suffering from HIV and because he believed he was not receiving appropriate treatment, he often had suicidal thoughts and has atte mpted in the past suicide as a way of seeking treatment. I have already dealt with the attempt on the day of his arrest and there have been three occasions in prisons as a result of his distress at his ill-health. And as the district judge found, those attempts appear to have been serious.
It was accepted that he had on occasions attempted suicide with no recollection of having done so. But his stated intent, that is an intent he said to commit suicide if he was extradited, was strongly suggestive of it being a voluntary act rather than an irresistible impulse. That is an important aspect of suicide cases. The court will very rarely regard a case in which an individual has indicated, whatever may have been his past conduct, that he will commit suicide if he is extradited and there is no supporting evidence that that would be other than a voluntary act. In such a case, it is highly unlikely that a suicide claim would result in a bar to extradition.
The judge made the point, which was right, that there was evidence before him of improvement in the facilities available. He then went on to consider the cases, I will come to those in a moment in relation to the approach to be adopted. His ruling was as follows:
"45. I am satisfied that there is a substantial risk that he will commit suicide. I am satisfied that this risk is linked to his extradition. On balance I am satisfied that on occasions his mental condition removes his capacity to resist his impulse to commit suicide.
46. I am satisfied that he will not succeed in committing suicide whatever steps are taken.
47. He has failed to rebut the presumption that the Latvian custodial institution in which he is likely to be held will discharge his responsibilities to...
To continue reading
Request your trial