Appeal against extradition order on five grounds: i) The judge should have discharged him because the Latvian authorities were estopped, or the issue of his surrender was res judicata, on account of his discharge in March 2011 in Scotland in extradition proceedings for substantially the same matters in connection with an earlier EAW which was subsequently withdrawn;
ii) Alternatively, the judge should have discharged him because by seeking the appellant’s surrender the Latvian judicial authority was abusing the process of the court;
iii) The judge should have discharged him on grounds of delay pursuant to section 14 of the 2003 Act;
iv) The judge should have discharged him pursuant to section 21A of the 2003 Act because his surrender would violate his rights under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights;
v) The judge should have discharged him pursuant to section 25 of the 2003 Act because of his physical condition.
Held: The appeal failed. An issue estoppel arising from res judicata has no place in English criminal law.
Burnett, Cranston LJJ
[2016] EWHC 802 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 184, [2016] 4 WLR 75
Bailii, WLRD
European Convention of Human Rights 8, Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Extradition, Human Rights
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.562128
