Jezdauckis v Latvia: extradition upheld after further assurances on prison hierarchy

The Administrative Court has dismissed the appeal in Dzintars Jezdauckis v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia [2026] EWHC 1756 (Admin), but only after requiring the requesting state to answer specific questions about where the appellant would be held and how the risk of inter-prisoner violence would be addressed. Mr Justice Kimblin delivered the judgement.

The appellant faces an accusation warrant alleging membership of an organised group buying, storing, transporting and reselling large quantities of narcotics between May and July 2017, offences carrying five to fifteen years. He had previously served an eight year sentence in Latvia for drug supply, and the alleged conduct falls within a period when he was in custody. He left Latvia in September 2021 and was arrested in Accrington in January 2024. District Judge Law ordered extradition in June 2024, rejecting Article 3 and Article 8 challenges.

The appeal turned on fresh evidence unavailable below: a medico-legal report from Dr Juliet Cohen recording 22 lesions, three consistent with the appellant's account of assaults at Daugavgriva prison, eleven highly consistent and four typical, together with diagnoses of moderately severe depression and moderate anxiety and an opinion that suicide represents a significant future risk. Dr Cohen was not called and the respondent neither sought to cross-examine nor adduced rebuttal evidence.

Kimblin J accepted that the evidential landscape had shifted sufficiently under section 27(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 for the court to reach its own view. He declined, however, to distinguish Sostacks and Igonins [2025] EWHC 2795 (Admin) on the general question, agreeing with Kerr J that the risk to prisoners generally in Latvia does not breach Article 3, notwithstanding the Committee for the Prevention of Torture's characterisation of the informal prisoner hierarchy as a malignant influence and its findings of grossly insufficient staffing and injuries routinely closed as accidents.

Dr Cohen's evaluative conclusions attracted only moderate weight, her assessments having gone largely one way with little cross-checking against other sources. The judge accepted that some scars were highly likely to have been acquired outside prison, and that the delay in raising the account damaged credibility, but noted the CPT's evidence of a strong culture against voicing complaint. He attached little weight to the Latvian government's response to the 2025 report, observing that repeated assertions of change and improvement across reports from 2017 to 2025 can only go so far before losing credibility.

The particularity of the case was decisive at the interim stage. Drawing an analogy with XY v Public Prosecutors Office of Oost Nederland, decided under Article 8 and section 25(2), Kimblin J held that there was a real risk that returning this appellant, unable to be excluded from membership of the lowest caste, to the conditions he had already experienced would amount to degrading treatment. He therefore posed four questions to the requesting authorities.

The April 2026 reply from Colonel Kaļins confirmed remand at Riga Central Prison, placement decided by law-governed criteria, and the availability of single cell accommodation at the new Liepāja Prison, agreed to represent 43 per cent of the estate. It did not state that the appellant would be so accommodated. Counsel described single occupancy as the gold standard.

Kimblin J found the reply sufficient. The availability of such accommodation, a lawful allocation process, evident awareness of the problems and concrete action, the principle of mutual trust and the absence of any Strasbourg pilot judgement together displaced the real risk. A copy of the judgement will be provided to the Latvian authorities.

Permission on Article 8 was refused, the judge holding that Andrysiewicz v Poland left the district judge's balance intact.