SERGEJS JEROFEJEVS v GENERAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, LATVIA

SERGEJS JEROFEJEVS v GENERAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, LATVIA

There is no viable ground of appeal against extradition, as the public interest outweighs any Article 8 ECHR considerations, the Latvian prosecutor qualifies as a judicial authority, and Latvian prison conditions have been authoritatively determined as compatible.

Parties
Appellant: Sergejs Jerofejevs; Respondent: General Prosecutor’s Office, Latvia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Judgment on Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extradition, European Arrest Warrant, Article 8 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Judicial Authority, Prison Conditions
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Extradition European Arrest Warrant Article 8 ECHR Article 3 ECHR Judicial Authority +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sergejs Jerofejevs

Appellant

General Prosecutor’s Office, Latvia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Judgment on Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Latvian prosecutor constitutes a judicial authority under section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether prison conditions in Latvia satisfy extradition compatibility requirements under Article 3 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether extradition would unjustifiably interfere with Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

There is no viable ground of appeal against extradition, as the public interest outweighs any Article 8 ECHR considerations, the Latvian prosecutor qualifies as a judicial authority, and Latvian prison conditions have been authoritatively determined as compatible.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • permission to appeal is refused
  • no power to order appellant to stay in the United Kingdom