Latvian extradition appeal allowed: 7-year sentence for drugs offences clearly disproportionate

The High Court has allowed the appeal against extradition of a Latvian man, represented by Malcolm Hawkes who was wanted to serve a 5-year prison sentence for supplying 8 grammes of cannabis at the age of 17, and to stand trial for selling 2 grammes of cannabis, for which he would, if convicted have faced a minimum additional 2 years imprisonment.

The appeal was allowed on the grounds of dual criminality and proportionality.

Dual criminality arose because the Latvian authorities had convicted and also wanted the appellant to stand trial for having used cannabis and ecstasy. The High Court accepted the submission that, on the evidence as presented in this case, there is no dual criminality – conduct recognised as an offence in England and Wales – by the fact of him having used controlled drugs. The appellant relied upon the 1968 authority of Hambleton v Callinan in which the court held that a test, proving that a person had drugs in their system could not, without more prove prior possession. In this case, there was no evidence of the appellant’s possession of the drugs, other than his positive drug test.

Moreover, the court held that the combined factors of the appellant’s young age at the time of the offences, the fact these were his first convictions, evidence of repeated failures by the Latvian authorities to deal with him promptly and the fact he has been the subject of an electronically-monitored curfew for over 2 years in these extradition proceedings, meant his extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with his right to private life, pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention.

In Muizarajs v Latvia, Malcolm was instructed by William Bergstrom and Viviane Bablin of Taylor Rose Solicitors.