Kiigicevs v Prosecutor General Office Latvia

Kiigicevs v Prosecutor General Office Latvia

The prosecutor is a judicial authority under the Supreme Court's interpretation and there is no sufficient evidence of a real risk to the appellant's safety or failure by Latvian authorities to protect him; thus, extradition does not breach Article 3.

Parties
Appellant: Kiigicevs; Respondent: Prosecutor General Office Latvia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Judicial Authority, Article 3 Human Rights Act, Extradition Procedure
Criminal Law Extradition Human Rights European Arrest Warrant Judicial Authority Article 3 Human Rights Act Extradition Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiigicevs

Appellant

Prosecutor General Office Latvia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecutor issuing the European Arrest Warrant is a judicial authority under section 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether extradition would breach Article 3 of the Human Rights Act due to risk to appellant's safety

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecutor is a judicial authority under the Supreme Court's interpretation and there is no sufficient evidence of a real risk to the appellant's safety or failure by Latvian authorities to protect him; thus, extradition does not breach Article 3.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed