Danfelds v General Prosecutor's Office, Latvia

Danfelds v General Prosecutor's Office, Latvia

The appellants failed to demonstrate, with objective, reliable, specific, and properly updated evidence, that extradition to Latvia would expose them to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The evidence showed improvements in prison conditions and did not rebut the presumption of mutual trust. For the First Appellant, extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. For the Second Appellant, due to the discharge of the first EAW, time served on curfew, likely non-custodial sentence, and COVID-19 restrictions, extradition would now be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights and is not justified.

Parties
First Appellant: Martins Danfelds; Second Appellant: Endijs Jodelis; Respondent: General Prosecutor’s Office, Latvia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Westminster Magistrates’ Court
Outcome
First Appellant’s appeal dismissed; Second Appellant’s appeal allowed on Article 8 ECHR and section 21A ground
Legal Topics
Extradition, European Arrest Warrant, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Prison Conditions, Proportionality, COVID 19 Prison Restrictions
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Extradition Law Extradition European Arrest Warrant Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Prison Conditions +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martins Danfelds

First Appellant

Endijs Jodelis

Second Appellant

General Prosecutor’s Office, Latvia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal From Westminster Magistrates’ Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to Latvia would expose the appellants to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR due to prison conditions
  2. 2 Whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the appellants’ right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the District Judge erred in the application of the Aranyosi test and in the proportionality assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to demonstrate, with objective, reliable, specific, and properly updated evidence, that extradition to Latvia would expose them to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The evidence showed improvements in prison conditions and did not rebut the presumption of mutual trust. For the First Appellant, extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights. For the Second Appellant, due to the discharge of the first EAW, time served on curfew, likely non-custodial sentence, and COVID-19 restrictions, extradition would now be a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights and is not justified.

Court Disposition

First Appellant’s appeal dismissed; Second Appellant’s appeal allowed on Article 8 ECHR and section 21A ground

Orders

  • First Appellant’s appeal dismissed; extradition order stands
  • Second Appellant’s appeal allowed; order for extradition quashed and Second Appellant discharged