Zubkovs v Court in Riga, Latvija
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Cranston J |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 3331 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 26 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | CO/8653/2012 |
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWHC 3331 (Admin)
Court and Reference: Administrative Court
Judges:Cranston J
CO/8653/2012
Appearances:M Westcott (instructed by Dalston Holmes Gray) for the Appellant; K Tyler (instructed by the CPS) for the Respondent.
Issues: Whether prison conditions in Latvia amounted to a breach of Art 3 of the ECHR; whether the District Judge had erred in failing to reopen and adjourn the case in order to comply with s22 of the Extradition Act 2003.
Facts: Z's extradition was sought by Latvia. His extradition was ordered by a District Judge. After the order the Judge's attention was drawn to the fact that Z faced an outstanding domestic charge. Through excusable error, the matter had not previously been brought to the Judge's attention. The District Judge concluded that he did not have the power to reopen the case under s22 of the Extradition Act 2003 and remanded Z in custody. Z appealed against his extradition order on the grounds that his extradition would amount to a breach of Art 3 of the ECHR. Z also submitted a judicial review application relating to the decision of the District Judge that he did not have the power to reopen and adjourn the extradition hearing.
1 This is a judicial review in relation to an extradition hearing and a statutory appeal in relation to the extradition order which was made at that hearing. In the judicial review, the appellant seeks permission to challenge the decision of District Judge Snow on 9 August of 2012, as an error of law, that he did not have the power to reopen and adjourn the extradition hearing. In the appeal, the appellant challenges the decision of District Judge Snow to order his extradition to Latvia. On 22 October, I ordered that both the judicial review and the appeal be listed together. That day I also considered a request from the appellant's solicitor, who had applied that the appellant be produced from custody. I considered that application and refused it on the basis that the appellant has capable representation by both counsel and a solicitor, and that his representatives would be able to convey the nature of the hearing and my judgment to him.
2 Another procedural aspect of the case is that, earlier this month, Ouseley J refused two applications made on behalf of the appellant. The first was for an adjournment to enable the appellant's solicitors (1) to complete the so called Sondy procedure, that is, Sondy v Crown Prosecution Service[2010] Extradition LR 157, in respect of the duty solicitor and interpreter, and (2) to obtain both an expert report in respect of prison conditions in Latvia and evidence from a friend of the appellant in Latvia regarding the appellant's complaints while he was previously in prison in Latvia. Ouseley J also refused an application for extension of a representation order to cover funding for an expert's report in relation to prison conditions in Latvia.
3 The warrant in this case was issued in July this year. It is in standard form. It is issued by the Prosecutor's General Office of Latvia and it requests that the appellant be returned for prosecution for two offences of theft, those thefts occurring, it is said, on 4 March last year and on 5 May last year. The 4 March theft was of a mobile phone in a game hall in Ludza; the 5 May theft was of two bottles of brandy, stolen with another person from a shop in that town. The warrant explains that these actions are criminal offences under the Latvian criminal law, ss175.2 and 180.2 respectively. The maximum sentences are six and three years respectively. The warrant was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 3 August 2012. The appellant was arrested several days later.
4 The appellant appeared before District Judge Snow on 9 August. He was represented by Mr Aslam of Hodge Jones & Allen, who was acting as a duty solicitor that day. Ms Tyler, who appears before me today for the requesting judicial authority, was there as well. The appellant raised no issues as to his production at court or as to his service with the warrant. He did not consent to his extradition, and so the judge opened the extradition...
To continue reading
Request your trial