[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Ivanovs v Prosecutor General Office, Republic of Latvia [2012] EWHC 2870 (Admin) (04 October 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2870.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 2870 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		4 October 2012

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal pursuant to section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Daphne Wickham given on 20 February 2011, whereby she directed that the appellant be extradited to Latvia to face trial for an offence of supplying drugs (MDMA) to an undercover police officer. That is the allegation.
2. The appellant himself is Russian by origin. He sought to resist his extradition on the basis of section 13, namely that it was said that this was not a true prosecution in the sense it was known that he was not actually guilty of the offence, but the reason why he was to be prosecuted was political, namely because he had been involved with a group or party who were concerned with the rights of Russians in Latvia, and his activities were not appreciated.
3. Evidence in relation to those matters was put before the District Judge, and in particular expert evidence was obtained from a known expert in this field, Professor Bowring. Unfortunately that evidence did not support the claim made by the appellant of the effect of the political matters which he said he was involved with, and indeed it was clear that the District Judge for good reason did not believe the appellant's account of his involvement in the political matters. But now the appeal is put on a slightly different basis.
4. I should say to start with that the claimant applied initially before me to adjourn the matter because he said that he did not appreciate that the hearing of his appeal was due to take place today. He thought it was on 21 December. In fact, the time within which the appeal had to be heard was extended to 21 December, and that was never the date upon which the appeal was to be heard.
5. He tells me that he needs more time to obtain further material because he has been in correspondence with the Prosecutor's Office in Latvia. More importantly, he has real concerns, and he says that he can produce further material which supports his concerns, that were he to be returned to Latvia, he would be likely to be killed because there are those who, because of his political activities and generally, are out to get him, and he says that this is supported by a knife attack that was made upon him in 2009 by a fellow Latvian.
6. I refused the application. He has had ample time since February to prepare for the matter, and I do not accept that he was misled in any way as to the date of the hearing. He was originally represented by solicitors, and solicitors who have some experience in extradition matters, but he complains that they failed to act as they ought to have done in pursuing his case. He is no longer represented.
7. I am entirely satisfied that all he has been doing has been an attempt to avoid, so far as he can, return to Latvia.
8. The evidence that he gave before the District Judge in relation to the political matters was not accepted. It was not supported by the expert evidence. So it is not at all surprising that that was so. He did raise the attack upon him in 2009, and it is fair to say that that aspect and the assertion that Article 2 applies was not, it seems, pursued before the District Judge.
9. So far as that is concerned, clearly further evidence might be necessary because certainly as things stand there is quite insufficient material to justify the assertions made. There is in fact no reason to accept that the Latvian authorities would not protect him if the need arose, and I appreciate that he is insistent that there is general corruption and that that general corruption will mean that he is singled out for persecution of one sort or another and possible death. But there really is no evidence to support that. Nor is there any evidence, so far as I can see, that he could obtain, and he certainly had ample time to obtain it if any such evidence existed because, as I say, the District Judge's decision was back in February of this year and we are now in October.
10. He is an entirely unreliable witness. The offence itself is straightforward - providing of drugs. It is a serious matter, and there is no reason, in my view, why I should overturn the decision of the District Judge in all the circumstances.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
12. APPELLANT: I would just like to say something else.
13. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Yes.
14. APPELLANT: Two months ago in Wandsworth Prison there was a gang of Latvian men who were inmates, who were trying to work out a plan to kill me, and a knife had been found. Also there is information in the administration office in prison about it and that was an attempt to kill me, but I cannot get access to this information. I could not get this information and I was told that only the prosecution services or the courts are allowed to get all the details of this attempt.
15. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Why did you not raise this earlier?
16. APPELLANT: Because, first of all, I was in shock because I was unaware of the hearing today.
17. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: When did this happen?
18. APPELLANT: A month or two ago.
19. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You could have written to the court.
20. APPELLANT: They told me that only a barrister or a court can make a request to receive this information. I was not able to.
21. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I am sorry, this does not alter it. That is it.