The High Court has ordered Juris Vingris surrendered to Latvia to serve a six-year-and-six-month prison sentence, rejecting his objections based on prison safety, family life and a trial held in his absence.
In a judgment delivered on 17 July 2017, Ms Justice Donnelly said the European arrest warrant sought his surrender to serve sentences for two offences. The court described the underlying case as involving a death following serious bodily injury and acts by state officials that exceeded their lawful authority. Those were convictions in Latvia; the Irish court was deciding whether surrender was permitted, not retrying the offences.
Vingris argued that surrender would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment in prison and disproportionately interfere with his family life. The court rejected the Article 8 objection, citing the seriousness of the offences and finding no particularly injurious or oppressive impact on him or his family beyond the hardship ordinarily caused by extradition.
On prison safety, the court rejected as unsupported the claim that he faced danger from Roma prisoners generally. It also found his account of a threat allegedly made to his mother by former co-accused in Dublin was not credible, noting that it was hearsay and that his mother and other potential witnesses had not provided evidence.
The court nevertheless considered Latvian prison arrangements. It said Latvia had described a procedure for assessing vulnerable prisoners and confirmed that Vingris would be placed in Riga Central Prison while his circumstances were examined. The court did not require a guarantee that he would be kept apart from particular prisoners; it considered that assessment and any placement decision were for Latvian authorities. It concluded that the information did not establish a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.
Vingris also challenged surrender because he had been tried on appeal in absentia. He said he had not authorised a lawyer to represent him. The court found that he knew an appeal was proceeding, had given his Latvian lawyer a mandate to defend him, and had not withdrawn it. It accepted the issuing authority’s certification that he was aware of the scheduled trial and was defended by counsel, and held that the statutory requirements for surrender after an in-absentia trial were met.
Having rejected each objection and found the statutory requirements otherwise satisfied, the High Court made an order for surrender to a person authorised by Latvia to receive him.