Menu My portfolio: 0

Court: Westminster Magistrates’ Court

Latvian request for the extradition of an ex-KGB agent is refused

Latvia v Karpickovs

Mr Boris Karpickovs was the subject of an extradition request from the Republic of Latvia. In refusing extradition under s.13 of the Extradition Act 2003, the judge concluded that the extradition request was brought for the purpose of silencing Mr Karpickovs as a result of his work for both the Russian and Latvian intelligence services and he might accordingly be prejudiced at his trial. The Court further concluded that there was a real risk of Mr Karpickovs suffering a flagrant denial of justice contrary to article 6 ECHR, due to the incentive of individuals to interfere with the usual course of justice in his case and the long-standing and deep-rooted problems with corruption within the Latvian judicial system.

Challenge to extradition successful on ECHR, art 8 grounds

The Government of the Republic of Turkey v Soykok, 25th June 2019

In extradition proceedings for the supply of cannabis, the requested person challenged extradition on several grounds:
1. Under the Extradition Act 2003, s 78(4)(b), the conduct described is not an extradition offence;
2. Under s 82, extradition would be oppressive due to the passage of time;
3. Under s 87, his extradition would violate ECHR arts 3, 6 and 8.
The court held that, having undertaken the balancing exercise for ECHR, art 8, it would be disproportionate to extradite the requested person to Turkey. This is because the offence was not the most serious, the requested person was only 19 when he committed it, and he is otherwise of good character and has made a positive life for himself in the UK with his partner of seven years. The court rejected all other grounds of challenge. As such the court discharged the requested person.

District Judge Zani allows extradition request from Romania

Bucharest Appeal Court, Romania v Alexander Adamescu

The Court rejected all objections to extradition (politically motivated prosecution, A3 prison conditions and A6) – in an important ruling for extradition hearings, so-called expert evidence from Lord Carlile in the form of reports from SC Strategy held inadmissible as incapable of satisfying the test for admissibility in Bonython, and insofar as it was based […]