CO/4505/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 1458 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Friday, 18 May 2012
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ALEKSEJEVS 
Applicant

v 

GOVERNMENT OF LATVIA 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Applicant appeared in person
Miss Hannah Hinton appeared on behalf of the Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Snow sitting in the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 28 March of this year, ordering the extradition of the appellant to Latvia to serve sentences imposed for offences of hooliganism and driving under the influence of drink.  
2.	The total balance due to be served is 7 months and 4 days.  The offence of hooliganism was committed in 2003 and on 13 August of this year, he having admitted his guilt, the appellant was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months' imprisonment.  That was suspended with a probational period of 18 months.  However, he committed the driving offence during the period of suspension and as a result, on 20 December 2004, he having been convicted of the driving offence, was sentenced to a total of 3 years and 1 month imprisonment, that is to say, the original 18 months which had been suspended and a further sentence, it would seem, of 1 year and 7 months imprisonment.  
3.	He was released conditionally from the sentences on 23 January 2008, when there was the period of 7 months and 4 days remaining.  On 7 March 2008, he came to this country.  Before the District Judge, he gave evidence that he had arranged with his probation officer, in the sense that he had informed the probation officer that the only way he could obtain work was to come to this country and indeed his family had already come here whilst he was in custody in order to be able to manage to find means of living.  Other members of his family, brothers and so on, I gather, have also come to this country.  
4.	The District Judge heard him give evidence, but rejected his evidence that he came here with the permission or at least the knowledge of the probation service in Latvia and decided that he came here deliberately, knowing that it was a breach of the conditions.  The appellant was in due course arrested on this arrest warrant in December of last year.  I gather from him that he was granted bail, but has served approximately 2 months in custody.  
5.	Unfortunately, he has committed a considerable number of offences in this country involving driving having drunk too much and some offences of dishonesty, for which he has received various sentences, most relatively short sentences of prison.  He has hardly shown himself to be a good citizen here.  
6.	He raises now, as he raised before the District Judge, two grounds.  One relates to his physical condition.  He unfortunately had a broken jaw and this has led to the need for medical attention.  He tells me he has an appointment with the doctor on Monday.  So far as that is concerned, I am afraid that I see no basis for saying that it would be oppressive for that reason to return him.  I am quite satisfied that there is sufficient medical treatment available in Latvia should such treatment be needed and that cannot conceivably amount to a bar to removal.  
7.	There is then article 8.  When the matter was heard before the district judge, he approached it on the basis of the decision in Norris, saying that there would have to be striking and unusual facts for such a challenge to succeed.  Norris is being challenged in the Supreme Court and we are still awaiting judgment from the Supreme Court on that issue.  I think the case was heard in March of this year.  The approach I have adopted ‑‑ and I gather it has been approved by the Divisional Court ‑‑ is to take the view that if, but only if I were to decide that the only basis for rejecting an Article 8 claim was a Norris approach, I should wait to see what the Supreme Court says.
8.	In the meantime, I propose to approach the matter on the basis that a lower standard is appropriate and consider proportionality on that basis.  There is no doubt, harsh though it may be, that where offences have been committed and where sentences have been imposed, prima facie it is appropriate and proportionate to return.  
9.	His wife and children have been here now since at least before he arrived here to join them in 2008.  He has some 5 months left to serve.  They have been in the past here without him when he was in prison and so it is certainly possible, if they wish, for them to remain here while he serves the balance of his sentence which now would be something in the region of 5 months plus a number of days.  Equally there is nothing to prevent them returning to Latvia to join him when he completes that sentence.  Whether or not in due course he will be allowed to remain in this country, having regard to the record he has built up here, will be a matter for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but there is a risk that it may be decided that it would not be conducive to the public good for him to be able to return here, but that as I say is not a matter for me.  It is a matter which will have to be decided in due course.
10.	As things stand, I have no doubt whatever that return in the circumstances would be proportionate and accordingly this appeal must be dismissed.
11.	THE INTERPRETER:  The gentleman is asking what he should do, what action he should do, what court he should write to, or ‑‑ obviously for (inaudible).
12.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  No, you cannot take the matter any further.  That is the end.
13.	THE INTERPRETER:  So should he expect letter from solicitor about being extradited or ‑‑
14.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  He will receive the formal notice, I assume.  Miss Hinton, what is the practice?
15.	MISS HINTON:  My Lord, I understand the order will be prepared by court.
16.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  Yes the order will be served ‑‑
17.	MISS HINTON:  ‑‑ and served upon him, and thereafter he will be contacted by prison authorities.  I am not sure, or of course SOCA as regards the arrangements ‑‑
18.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  You are telling me he will receive the necessary notices in due course.  All right.