Jonicenoks v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia

1. Ruslans Jonicenoks appeals against an order made by District Judge Ikram on 3 rd October 2014 at Westminster Magistrates' Court that he be extradited to Latvia on an Accusation European Arrest Warrant issued out of Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia on 2 nd June 2014. It was certified by the National Crime Agency on 11 th July 2014.

2. The appellant's extradition is sought to face trial in respect of an offence of a street robbery, allegedly committed on 3 rd October 2012. It was a joint enterprise robbery on a female victim. The only ground which was raised below was under Article 8.

3. When this matter was called on, Miss Kathryn Howarth, counsel for the appellant, indicated that she proposed to make no submissions. Her solicitors had tried to see the appellant in custody, but he had not been prepared to see them. Miss Howarth, therefore, made no submissions.

4. The appellant is now 28 years of age. He has convictions in this country for interfering with a motor vehicle and theft by shoplifting.

5. He lives with a lady, who has a son named Artjem. The appellant is not the biological father, but Artjem sees him as his father. Artjem's mother says that she would not be able to cope without the appellant and also that she is dependent on him for money.

6. The position in respect of Article 8 claims which are made resist extradition have been considered by the Supreme Court in two cases: Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 , and, more recently HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 . In that case Baroness Hale set out the relevant principles at paragraphs 8, 30 and 82 and 83.

7. It could not be proved that the appellant was a fugitive, and the District Judge therefore proceeded on that basis. His reasoning was that the alleged offence was a serious one which would undoubtedly attract a significant custodial sentence if convicted in this jurisdiction. The focus of his judgment then moved to Artjem. He explained that the appellant was not Artjem's sole carer. No doubt if the appellant were to be extradited, there would be hardship for the appellant's immediate family. The District Judge said that this was not an unusual feature of the case, but it is a sad and inevitable feature of extradition cases. He considered that the interference with family and private rights had to be balanced with the desire that people accused of crime should be brought to trial; that people convicted of crime should serve their sentence; and that the United Kingdom should honour its treaty obligations.

8. The District Judge said that, on the facts of the case, he was not satisfied that extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the appellant, his wife or her son. He was therefore satisfied that it was proportionate to order extradition.

9. In my view there is nothing wrong with that reasoning. Although the appellant's Article 8 rights are engaged, the exception in Article 8(2) applies. Under section 21 A(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 , I can only order extradition if I am satisfied that to do so would be compatible with the appellant's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and that extradition would be proportionate. Subsection (3) requires me to take account of only the following matters: "(a) the seriousness of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence; (b) the likely penalty that would be imposed if the defendant was found guilty of the extradition offence; and (c) the possibility of the relevant foreign authorities taking measures that would be less coercive than the extradition of the defendant."

10. I am quite satisfied that it would be compatible with the appellant's rights and that extradition would be proportionate because of the seriousness of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence and the likely sentence that will be imposed upon him.. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.