Extradition Appeal Balances Fugitivity and Article 8 Rights

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2957 (Admin)
Judgment on


Valerijs Lukasovs v General Prosecutor’s Office (Latvia) is a recent judgment from the High Court of Justice’s King’s Bench Division (Administrative Court). This case involves an extradition appeal which centers around the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 8 – the right to respect for one’s private and family life. The judgment provides a thorough analysis of the interface between extradition law and human rights, considering both the interests of the requesting state and the rights of the individual.

Key Facts

Valerijs Lukasovs, the appellant, faced extradition to Latvia concerning an arson offense allegedly committed in December 2014. After his arrest and interrogation in 2016, Lukasovs had a duty to notify authorities of his residence, which he failed to do after changing address in 2017. In 2022, the District Judge ordered Lukasovs’s extradition, relying on various legal considerations including fugitivity, passage of time, and Article 8 of the ECHR. On appeal, defense arguments focused on the characterization of Lukasovs as a fugitive and the proportionality of extradition under Article 8.


A central issue on appeal was whether Lukasovs should be classified as a “fugitive,” which affects the balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR. It was argued, with reference to De Zorzi v France [2019] EWHC 2062 (Admin) [2019] 1 WLR 6249, that the appellant’s failure to notify authorities of his change of address did not warrant the fugitive status, as he was already outside of Latvian jurisdiction.

Article 8 ECHR

The appellate court undertook a balancing exercise between the public interest in extradition and the individual’s private and family life under Article 8. The factors considered included the severity of the offense, the passage of time, family circumstances, the appellant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements, the nature of the offense, and the public interest in fulfilling international extradition obligations.


Proportionality as described in section 21A implies that the interference with Article 8 rights must be justified, considering both the necessity of the extradition in relation to the offense and the impact on the individual’s family life.


FORDHAM J, in his detailed judgment, contends that while there might be an arguable issue on the fugitive aspect, the overarching Article 8 appeal lacks viability. Even if the appellant were not a fugitive, the passage of time does not significantly diminish the state’s interest in extradition for a serious offense. The court also emphasized that the family circumstances came to be established during the period when the appellant’s fugitive status would have been active. The public interest in extradition was deemed to decisively outweigh the appellant’s Article 8 rights.


The case of Valerijs Lukasovs v General Prosecutor’s Office (Latvia) reaffirms that in extradition proceedings, an appellant’s Article 8 rights are an important consideration. However, it also illustrates the court’s willingness to uphold extradition orders even where there is considerable family hardship, provided there is a strong public interest in effecting the extradition, and the appellant has contributed to the passage of time considerations through their own actions. The court’s decision underscores the case-specific nature of the proportionality analysis, particularly how an individual’s compliance with legal requirements impacts their appeal under human rights considerations.

Related Summaries