The High Court ordered Aleksejs Stelmahs’s surrender to Latvia under a European arrest warrant so he could face one charge of robbery, rejecting objections about the warrant’s wording and the possible number of charges.
In a judgment delivered on 4 October 2006, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the warrant sought surrender for trial over an alleged incident in Riga on 18 April 2003. The judgment noted that the English translation incorrectly gave the date as 18 April 2004. The allegation was that Stelmahs and three other people, wearing masks and gloves and carrying guns, entered a shop and stole 24,753.51 Latvian lats. These are allegations described in the warrant, not findings that the robbery occurred.
The judge said the person before the court was the person named in the warrant, its execution had been duly endorsed before the arrest, and the alleged offence met the minimum gravity requirement. He also found that the offence was listed as “organized or armed robbery” under the relevant European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision, so correspondence with an Irish offence did not need to be verified. He said, in any event, an Irish offence could be identified from the alleged conduct.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the translation was unclear about whether Latvia had issued an arrest warrant or equivalent judicial decision. The judge accepted that the translation was unclear but said the warrant as a whole showed that arrest was sought so Stelmahs could face trial. He declined to question whether Latvian authorities had complied with the Framework Decision.
Counsel also pointed to a difference between the Latvian body that issued the underlying decision and the Riga Regional Court, which issued the European warrant. The judge said that difference was no ground to refuse surrender.
A further objection concerned whether Stelmahs might face two charges. The warrant described one offence, while an accompanying undertaking referred to two provisions of Latvian criminal law. The applicant’s counsel submitted that only one robbery charge would be faced, and said the court could seek clarification if it had doubts. The judge said clarification was unnecessary and concluded that the warrant made clear that there would be one charge. He also said the court was entitled to presume Latvia would comply with the Framework Decision unless the contrary was shown.
The court found that no undertaking was required in relation to trial or punishment in absentia, and that no statutory or Framework Decision bar required refusal. It ordered surrender under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The judgment orders surrender; it does not determine guilt or the outcome of any Latvian trial.