High Court considers extradition delay for trafficking victim

Introduction

The High Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of SLP vs Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia, addressing whether extradition proceedings should be delayed pending a decision under the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) concerning the applicant's status as a potential victim of trafficking. The judgment, handed down by Mr Justice Dexter Dias, explored the intersection of extradition law and the protections afforded to victims of modern slavery under UK law.

Background

The case involved an appeal by SLP, a Latvian national, against an extradition order to Latvia. SLP, whose anonymity was preserved under a court order, claimed that his alleged criminal activities in Latvia were a result of being trafficked and coerced by a criminal organisation. The applicant sought to adjourn the extradition proceedings until a conclusive grounds (CG) decision was made by the Single Competent Authority (SCA) under the NRM.

Legal Framework

The court examined the legal framework surrounding the NRM and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA 2022), particularly section 61, which provides a recovery period for identified potential victims of trafficking. The applicant argued that this provision should apply to extradition cases, effectively barring his removal from the UK until a CG decision was reached. The court also considered the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and relevant case law, including the Divisional Court's guidance in Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski.

Arguments and Submissions

The applicant's counsel contended that delaying the extradition proceedings was necessary to ensure that SLP's rights as a potential trafficking victim were fully considered. They argued that a CG decision could provide crucial evidence regarding SLP's victim status, which might impact the extradition decision. Conversely, the respondent, represented by the CPS Extradition Unit, argued that further delay was unwarranted and that the NRM process should not impede the court's ability to determine extradition matters.

Court's Analysis

Mr Justice Dexter Dias analysed the statutory language of section 61 of NABA 2022 and its applicability to extradition proceedings. He concluded that the provision did not extend to extradition, as the Act primarily addressed immigration and asylum matters, not extradition. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the efficiency and timeliness of extradition processes, as outlined in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) and the European Framework Decision.

Conclusion

The court ultimately dismissed the application to adjourn the extradition proceedings. It held that the CG decision under the NRM, while potentially informative, was not binding on the court and did not justify delaying the extradition process. The judgment underscored the need for extradition proceedings to remain streamlined and not be unduly delayed by ancillary processes.

Implications

This case highlights the complex interplay between extradition law and the protections afforded to potential victims of trafficking. It reaffirms the principle that extradition proceedings should not be routinely delayed for NRM decisions, aligning with the broader policy objectives of expeditious judicial processes in extradition cases.

Learn More

For more information on the legal framework surrounding trafficking and extradition, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.