Karahojevs, R (on the application of) v Prosecutors Generals Office Latvia
The only ground of appeal, that the Prosecutor General's Office is not a judicial authority, is no longer tenable following the Supreme Court's decision in Assange; therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant: Karahajevs; Respondent: Prosecutors Generals Office Latvia
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 November 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Extradition Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- European Arrest Warrant, Judicial Authority, Appeal Dismissal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Karahajevs
Applicant
Prosecutors Generals Office Latvia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Extradition Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Prosecutor General's Office of Latvia constitutes a judicial authority for purposes of a European Arrest Warrant
Ratio Decidendi
The only ground of appeal, that the Prosecutor General's Office is not a judicial authority, is no longer tenable following the Supreme Court's decision in Assange; therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 3561 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO/7004/2012 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Tuesday, 27 November 2012 B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE COLLINS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF KARAHOJEVS v PROSECUTORS GENERALS OFFICE LATVIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Claimant was not represented The Defendant was not represented - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J U D G M E N T Claimant Defendant 1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act against a decision of the District Judge which directed the appellant's removal to Latvia in respect of a European Arrest Warrant. The issue raised before the District Judge, and the only issue raised, was what I may call the Assange point. That is to say, the assertion that the request through the Prosecutor General's Office was not a request by a judicial authority. 2. 3. The decision in the Magistrates' Court preceded the final decision of the Supreme Court in Assange and in fact decided in the way that the Supreme Court eventually decided. Since that is the only ground which has been relied on, it is clear that there can be no merit any more in this appeal and it must therefore be dismissed. I should say that the information before the court was that the appellant's representatives were going to see him on, I think, Thursday or Friday of last week and would notify the court whether the appeal was to be withdrawn. Whether or not the court has been so notified, it is clear that the appeal cannot, in the circumstances, be allowed. Accordingly, I dismiss it.