[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Brazuks v General Office of the Republic of Latvia [2013] EWHC 1527 (Admin) (13 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/1527.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 1527 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		13 May 2013

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a bail application on behalf of Mr Brazuks who faces an extradition warrant in relation to serious offences of robbery, which apparently carry a minimum sentence which may be 3 years or may be as much as 8 years, but 3 years is, of course, in itself a significant sentence.
2. He arrived in this country in 2009. He was granted bail, following a number of applications, with various conditions. The significant one, for the purposes of what I have to decide, was residence at an address in Reading. It seems that he kept to his bail conditions for a substantial period of time but his fiancee, whom he hopes to marry before any extradition takes place, was a student and it became impossible to pay the rent. He, apparently of his own accord, applied for his bail to be revoked on the basis that he had nowhere where he could live. It seems from the information before me that his fiancee has now completed her studies and has a job and so the rent can now be afforded and so bail on the same conditions as were applied before is now sought. There is in addition to the conditions of residence, tagging, curfew, police reporting and surrender of passport, £1,000 held by the Magistrates' Court.
3. The objection is on the basis that he is an absconding risk. That is understandable having regard to the seriousness of the charges that he faces.
4. Obviously, the matter will be considered in depth when he appears before the District Judge. I am told that the basis upon which he seeks to challenge extradition lies, essentially, on prison conditions in Latvia, which are said to contravene Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not know, of course, what evidence he has available on that, although I am aware from other cases that there have been issues raised in relation to the prison conditions in Latvia, there are various international reports, and I know also that the situation has improved from what it was some 3 or 4 years ago.
5. In all the circumstances, it seems to me, having regard to the closeness of the hearing and the pressure that will exist on the applicant the closer it gets to the reality of extradition, that the incentive to abscond becomes that much greater. In all the circumstances, I am afraid that I am not prepared to grant bail at this stage. I do, however, make it clear that this decision must not be taken as final, in the sense that it will be open to the District Judge on whatever information is available to him and on his knowledge of the issues that have been raised before him to decide in a different fashion. I am not in any way by this decision indicating that the District Judge should be bound by what I have decided. The circumstances, as it seems to me, existing at the moment are such that I am not prepared to grant bail at this stage.
6. Mr Keith, I would like you to be able to pass on to the District Judge what I said there, that this is in no way binding. If an application is made, he should consider it entirely afresh.
7. MR KEITH: Thank you, my Lord.