Jasvins v General Prosecutor's Office Latvia

Jasvins v General Prosecutor's Office Latvia

The second extradition proceedings were an abuse of process because they circumvented a prior court order and decision by relying on material that should have been produced earlier. The public interest in finality and compliance with court orders outweighed the public interest in extradition in this case. There was no sufficient evidence to support breaches of ECHR Articles 3 or 8.

Parties
Appellant: Vadims Jasvins; Respondent: General Prosecutor's Office Latvia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, European Arrest Warrant, ECHR Article 3, ECHR Article 8, Finality of Litigation, Collateral Attack, Case Management
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Abuse of Process European Arrest Warrant ECHR Article 3 ECHR Article 8 Finality of Litigation +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vadims Jasvins

Appellant

General Prosecutor's Office Latvia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second extradition proceedings constituted an abuse of process by circumventing a prior court order and decision
  2. 2 Whether extradition would breach ECHR Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
  3. 3 Whether extradition would breach ECHR Article 8 (right to private and family life)

Ratio Decidendi

The second extradition proceedings were an abuse of process because they circumvented a prior court order and decision by relying on material that should have been produced earlier. The public interest in finality and compliance with court orders outweighed the public interest in extradition in this case. There was no sufficient evidence to support breaches of ECHR Articles 3 or 8.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The extradition order made by the District Judge is quashed.
  • Mr Jasvins is discharged.