AC-2024-LON-0003395 - [2025] EWHC 2795 (Admin)

This judgment addresses, not for the first time, the question of prison conditions in Latvia, a Council of Europe state to which the United Kingdom extradites criminals convicted there or accused of crimes and wanted to stand trial there. The arrangements in this country are found in Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the 2003 Act). Latvia is a European Union (EU) state and a category 1 territory under that Act. Internationally, the arrangements are found in Part 3, Title VII of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement of 30 December 2020 (TACA). (Footnote: ¹)

The appellant, Mr Sostaks, and the applicant, Mr Igoniņs, are in custody here and currently receive opioid substitution therapy at HMP Wandsworth for their long term substance abuse and addiction. Both say there is a real risk that their detention in the Latvia would lead to them receiving degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the ECHR and they should therefore be discharged under section 21A(4)(a) of the 2003 Act. Alternatively, they ask the court to seek appropriate assurances from the Latvian authorities under TACA article 604(c).

Mr Sostaks has permission from Sweeting J to appeal against the order of the Deputy Chief Magistrate, District Judge Ikram, made on 10 October 2024, to extradite him to Latvia to face trial on five charges of theft, alleged in an accusation warrant to have been committed in Daugavpils from February to June 2021. He has Fordham J’s permission to advance a further ground: that his extradition would be disproportionate under section 21A(1)(b) of the 2003 Act, principally because of the deductible time served in HMP Wandsworth.

Mr Igoniņs’ extradition to Latvia was ordered by District Judge Goozée on 29 November 2024 for reasons given in the judgment of District Judge Clarke in her judgment the same day. He is wanted to stand trial for two drugs offences alleged in an accusation warrant: buying and storing a “large quantity” of narcotic substance, in Riga in about April 2019; and buying and storing a psychotropic substance, carfentanyl, in Riga in about June 2019. McGowan J ordered a rolled up hearing in his case and that it should be joined to Mr Sostaks’ appeal.

I had full written and oral argument from counsel for Messrs Sostaks and Igoniņs, and for the respondent. I grant Mr Igoniņs permission to appeal on the article 3 ground. Both appellants also sought to advance a challenge to the decisions below based on article 8 of the ECHR, but both have sensibly abandoned that ground of appeal in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Andrysiewicz v. Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland [2025] 1 WLR 2733.

The appellants say they will suffer degrading treatment if they attempt to obtain treatment for their drug addiction within the Latvian prison regime: those who do so become so-called “untouchables” within an informal prisoner hierarchy which divides prisoners into castes. The appellants must, they submit, either forego drug rehabilitation treatment, normally a pre-condition of early release, or suffer the degrading treatment meted out to untouchables in violation of ECHR article 3.