[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 >> Keiss v Limbazi District Court of the Republic of Latvia [2012] EWHC 317 (Admin) (10 February 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/317.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 317 (Admin)

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		10 February 2012

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Riddle, who on 1 November 2011 ordered that the appellant be extradited to Latvia to face trial for an offence of theft. In fact, judging by the circumstances in the warrant, it would here be an offence of burglary and theft, it being alleged that the appellant, together with at least one other, in a drunken condition broke into what appears to have been a shop and stole alcohol of one sort or another. The offence itself was allegedly committed in 2005.
2. The appellant decided that he would not stay in Latvia to answer the charge and came to this country in 2006. In fact, a warrant was issued in 2007 and was certified here. The appellant was arrested and granted bail, but absconded from his bail. It was not until eight months ago that the authorities caught up with him and he was arrested, and there was the hearing before the Magistrates' Court.
3. It follows that any argument based upon lapse of time since the alleged commission of the offence is not an argument that carries any weight at all, since the lapse of time has been caused virtually entirely by the actions of the appellant.
4. Essentially, the appellant raised two matters upon which he still relies before the District Judge. First, he argued and he called evidence from sources in Latvia, in particular a report of the ombudsman for Latvia, in respect of prison conditions there because he suffers from a number of medical problems. He has very high blood pressure which has to be controlled by medication. In addition, he says that there were problems discovered in relation to both his kidneys and his liver, and also he has some back problems. He is concerned, and indeed he produced some evidence to support that concern, that the Latvian authorities would not be able to provide sufficient medical care in prison, and thus he would be at risk of serious illness or worse were he to be extradited.
5. The second ground is that there is, he says, a particular reason why he fears removal because he worked as an informant. Hence, that being known, he would be at risk of comeback from organised criminals because the people he was asked to inform upon and was part of an investigation against were organised criminals and had links with corrupt police officers.
6. The appellant also asserts -- and he tells me he wanted to call evidence from his co-defendant in the charge for which his extradition is sought to support this -- that a confession was beaten out of him by police officers and that confession is what led to him being charged the he is not guilty of the offence and, secondly, his co-defendant would be able, he says, to confirm that he would be at risk were he to be returned to Latvia because of his activities as an informant.
7. Unfortunately, the co-defendant has been murdered, and so is obviously not available to give any evidence. In fact, he would not have been able to call that evidence in any event because it was and should have been available below, but no steps were taken to produce it then.
8. Accordingly, the appellant has lost nothing by that evidence not being now available. Of course, a statement could in any event have been obtained and put before the lower court, and such weight as was considered appropriate by the judge could have been attached to it.
9. The appellant gave evidence before the District Judge, and District Judge Riddle was able to assess him as a witness and to consider the evidence upon which he relied. The District Judge did not accept his evidence about his work as an informant. He gives reasons for concluding that the evidence was not in the least satisfactory, and so he did not accept that there was indeed any risk of treatment which contravened Article 3 or was liable to produce a real danger for the appellant.
10. I have no basis for going behind those findings. There is nothing new which is put before this court which suggests that those findings are wrong as a matter of law, or indeed as a matter of fact. In those circumstances, I accept the conclusions reached on that issue by the District Judge.
11. So far as the medical side is concerned, the situation was undoubtedly poor. There were real problems, as the ombudsman's report shows, in the Latvian jail system in providing proper access to medical treatment. However, the evidence before the District Judge was that there has been an improvement, and that there is in particular a real improvement in respect of the medical care in prison. Prisoners may consult doctors, drugs are free and there is an examination.
12. It seems to me that one matter which is required in a case such as this is that a report from the doctors who are treating him here, and an indication of what medication he is on and why he is on that medication and what steps in the view of the doctors here should be taken to protect his health, must be taken with him and conveyed to the Latvian authorities. That is the safeguard which is necessary. However, on the findings again of the District Judge, I am not in the least persuaded that the situation in Latvia is such as would mean that he is not able to receive such treatment as is necessary in order to protect him and to protect his health.
13. In those circumstances, I am afraid that there is no basis for overturning the decision of the District Judge.
14. I would only add that the appellant was represented. His solicitors have come off the record at their request. Of course, I have not asked, nor do I know, why that has happened. But the appellant asked for an adjournment in order to be able to instruct other solicitors. I was not prepared to grant that adjournment because I have seen all the material upon which he seeks to rely. I have also seen the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument before the Magistrates' Court.
15. In those circumstances, I am entirely satisfied that it would be unnecessary in the interests of justice to adjourn this to enable the appellant to be represented. As it is, this appeal must be dismissed.
16. There we are. You have heard that I have said that any medical reports must be taken with you and forwarded with you to the Latvian authorities.