The High Court has ordered the surrender of Jurijs Jermolajevs to Latvia on five of seven offences listed in a European arrest warrant. It declined to order surrender on two offences because the minimum gravity threshold was not met for those allegations under Irish law governing European arrest warrants.
The warrant was issued by Latvia on 24 February 2012 and endorsed for execution in Ireland on 6 March 2012. Jermolajevs was arrested on 16 April 2012. At a surrender hearing on 29 November 2012, he opposed being returned to Latvia, where he was wanted for trial. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 12 February 2013.
The allegations in the warrant concern seven offences said to have taken place in Daugavpils between November 2006 and March 2007, when Jermolajevs was 17. They include thefts from offices and shops, damage to shop windows and goods, and an allegation that he failed to report a serious offence. These were allegations set out in the warrant, not findings that the offences had been proved.
The court found Irish-law equivalents for all seven allegations. However, it concluded that two failed the statutory minimum-gravity test because Latvian law did not permit a custodial sentence for a minor convicted of the relevant less serious offences. Those were offence three, concerning the alleged failure to report a theft, and offence five, concerning alleged damage to shop windows and goods. The court therefore said it could not order surrender on those two offences.
For the other five offences, the court found the minimum-gravity threshold was met. It considered information about reduced penalties for offences committed by minors and concluded that the threshold was satisfied even if the applicable maximum custodial term was two years rather than five.
Jermolajevs also argued that surrender would expose him to inhuman or degrading prison conditions in Latvia and disproportionately interfere with his family life. He relied on material about prison conditions, including findings concerning quarantine cells at Daugavgriva Prison, and gave evidence about his family’s life in Ireland and his mother’s illness. The court rejected both objections. It said the evidence did not establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the impact on family life did not outweigh the public interest in surrender.
The court was otherwise satisfied that the statutory requirements for surrender were met. It ordered surrender in respect of offences one, two, four, six and seven, while refusing it in respect of offences three and five. The judgment determined the surrender application; it did not decide whether Jermolajevs was guilty of the alleged offences.