Jazeps Birskis v General Prosecutor's Office, Latvia
[2024] EWHC 2540 (Admin)
Vjaceslavs Vascenkovs v Prosecutor General’s Office, Republic of Latvia
14 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2830 (Admin)
High Court
A man is being sent back to Latvia to face trial for claiming unemployment benefits he wasn't entitled to. A UK court decided it's fair to send him back because the crime was serious enough, and despite concerns about Latvian prisons, there wasn't enough evidence to prove he would be mistreated.
Key Facts
- •Vjaceslavs Vascenkovs appeals an extradition order to Latvia for allegedly providing false information on an unemployment benefit application in 2017 (€6,365.40).
- •The maximum sentence for the offense under section 177(1) of the Latvian Criminal Code is 3 years.
- •Vascenkovs's appeal grounds: disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights, disproportionate extradition under section 21A(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, and risk of Article 3 ill-treatment due to Latvian prison conditions.
- •Vascenkovs arrived in the UK in April 2020, has been employed, has a recent partner, and provides financial support to family in Latvia.
Legal Principles
Proportionality in extradition
Extradition Act 2003, section 21A(1)(b), (3)
Article 8 ECHR right to private and family life
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
Article 3 ECHR prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3
Mutual recognition in extradition
Trade and Co-operation Agreement, Article 597, 596, 613; Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Seriousness of the offense in proportionality assessment
Criminal Practice Directions 2023, paragraph 12.2; Miraszewski v District Court in Torun, Poland [2015] 1 WLR 3929
Outcomes
Application to amend grounds of appeal (Article 3 ill-treatment) refused.
Presumption of compliance with Article 3 by Latvia; ongoing efforts to address prison violence; no substantial grounds to believe Vascenkovs faces a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment.
Appeal dismissed.
Extradition is not disproportionate under section 21A(1)(b) of the 2003 Act; Article 8 rights not disproportionately interfered with; District Judge's application of section 21A was appropriate.
Similar Cases
Valerijs Lukasovs v General Prosecutor’s Office (Latvia)
[2023] EWHC 2957 (Admin)
Mantas Barkauskas v Prosecutors General of the Republic of Lithuania
[2024] EWHC 2815 (Admin)
Norbert Miernik v Sad Okregowy III Criminal Division In Kielce, Poland
[2024] EWHC 1457 (Admin)
Vojtech Drahonsky v District Court of Usti Nad Laden (Czech Republic)
[2023] EWHC 2858 (Admin)