Laura Herbert persuades High Court that there is a real risk of an Article 3 ECHR (inhuman and degrading treatment) breach in extradition proceedings.

Laura's client (Mr J) is sought to be extradited to Latvia to face trial for drug dealing in prison, however Mr J stated that that when he was previously in Latvian prison he was beaten severely by other prisoners and treated as a lower 'caste' prisoner. The District Judge had disbelieved his account.

Laura took the case on appeal and sought the instruction of a forensic physician with experience of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment to assess the credibility of her client’s account, and the scars he bore from his experience. The expert concluded that Mr J had scars that were highly consistent with, and typical of, the account of ill-treatment.

There have been many extradition cases regarding Latvian prison conditions and the issue of inter-prisoner violence and the informal 'caste' system where prisoners are placed in one of three 'castes' is well known and documented. Previously, however, the Court has always found that Latvia as an EU country and a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR') had a presumption of compliance with their human rights obligations and that there had not been 'cogent' evidence to displace it.

The appeal was heard on 17 March 2026 before Mr Justice Kimblin at the Royal Courts of Justice. Giving judgment on 19 March, the Judge accepted that many of Mr J's scars were a result of ill treatment in Latvian prison and that this type of treatment was consistent with the Committee for Prevention of Torture (CPT) reports. The Judge was not satisfied with the Latvian response that there were improvements being made, and found that “the strong presumption of compliance was a presumption of compliance, not that compliance will be achieved” and that there “comes a point at which the assertion of change and improvement” only goes so far. The Judge did not find that the general presumption of compliance for Latvia had been lost. Instead, the Judge concluded that, because of Mr J's experience, and as he could not eliminate the real risk that Mr J was a member of the lowest caste, for Mr J in particular he was at risk of an Article 3 ECHR breach.

For the first time, it is understood Lativa has been requested to provide a response to this issue. Mr Justice Kimblin has requested that the Latvian Judicial Authority provide information about which prison Mr J will be returned to and what measures the Latvians will take to address the risks of inter-prisoner violence to avoid any future ill-treatment – akin to what is known as an 'Aranyosi request.' The case will be finally determined once this further evidence is received. 

Laura was instructed by Mark Brown for Brysons Solicitors.