![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> SLP v Prosecutor General Of The Republic Of Latvia (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 298 (Admin) (14 February 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/298.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 298 (Admin), [2025] WLR(D) 106 |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [View ICLR summary: [2025] WLR(D) 106] [Help]
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 298 (Admin)
Case No: AC-2023- LON-002411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 14/02/2025
Before:
Mr Justice Dexter Dias
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
|
SLP (anonymity order granted 22 January 2025) |
Applicant |
|
- and –
| |
|
PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA |
Respondent |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Benjamin Seifert (instructed by Birds, Solicitors) for the Applicant
Thomas Williams (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 22 January 2025
Further written submissions: 29 January 2025
(Judgment circulated: 10 February 2025)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment Approved
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 14th February 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Table of Contents
Mr Justice Dexter Dias:
"whether extradition would be compatible with articles 4 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there being a claim by the requested person that the conduct amounting to the alleged extradition offence arose because he was a victim of slavery/trafficking in Latvia."
Should the extradition appeal proceedings be delayed pending a CG decision by the SCA under the NRM?
"3. ... In summary:
- on 9 February 2023, DJMC King refused an application to vacate a listing of the extradition hearing on 22 February 2023;
- on 22 February 2023, the extradition hearing was adjourned by DJMC Clews to 9 June 2023;
- on 9 June 2023, the extradition hearing was listed before me, and I refused an application to adjourn, heard evidence and submissions, and adjourned until 7 July 2023 for judgment to be given;
- on 6 July 2023, the case was taken out of the list and adjourned to 27 July when I heard and refused an application that judgment on the substantive issues case should be adjourned indefinitely.
4. These applications were all made by the requested person on the basis that he is a victim of modern slavery in Latvia and there was, and is, extant consideration in the UK of his circumstances in Latvia by the Single Competent Authority, under the National Referral Mechanism. It was submitted by Mr Seifert, on the requested person's behalf, that the extradition hearing (and, later, delivery of judgment on the substantive issues) should be adjourned until the conclusion of that referral."
"We have assessed this NRM referral and have decided there are Reasonable Grounds to believe it is a case of modern slavery (human trafficking and / or slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour)."
Description of offence |
Unauthorised manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation and forwarding of narcotic and psychotropic substances for the purpose of disposal and unauthorised disposal (Offence involving large amounts of narcotic or psychotropic substances) |
Penal provision |
Section 253(3) of the Criminal Law |
Maximum sentence |
Liberty deprivation for 5 and up to 15 years |
Particulars of alleged conduct |
"[SLP], in circumstances, place, time and manner not exactly established during the pre-trial investigation, but no later than before 10 March 2021, illegally acquired in large amount with resale purpose 105,2953 g of a mixture of substances that contains the narcotic substance carfentanil in any amount (group of substances "Acetylfentanyls"). On 10 March 2021 at about 13.20 o'clock, [SLP], in order to implement his criminal intent to resale the narcotic substance illegally, for the purpose of self- enrichment, in Riga at XXXXX, illegally, in large amount, resold 2,5771 g of the mixture of substances that contains the narcotic substance ... to a person engaged into a special sting investigation operation for 150 EUR, after that he was detained. Another part of the mixture of substances that contains the narcotic substance – carfentanil ..., namely, 102,7182 g, that shall be regarded as large amount, [SLP] with resale purpose was illegally storing in his place of residence in Riga, at XXXXXX until 10 March 2021, 14.00-15.50 o'clock, when the abovementioned prohibited substance was found and seized during an authorised search ...." |
"1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."
"the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs."
51 "In December 2008, the UK ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking; it came into force on 1 April 2009; effect is given to several of its provisions by the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The UK has also opted into the EU Trafficking Directive: Parliament and Council Directive 2011/36/EU of 5 April 2015 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework decision 2002/629/JHA (OJ 2011 L101, p 1). Neither the Convention nor the Directive provides any bar to extradition. The decision of the competent authority that a person has been trafficked is not in any way binding on a district judge.
52 A district judge, having heard the evidence, must therefore himself determine the issue as to whether the requested person has been trafficked, having been assisted by the Crown Prosecution Service and the UKHTC by provision of the relevant evidence in their possession, subject to principles of public interest immunity from disclosure. Judges should not normally adjourn hearings for a referral to the UK competent authority, nor defer the effect of their extradition decisions pending a decision on a referral by the UK competent authority."
"I agree with [counsel] in relation to the Conclusive Grounds decision in the Appellant's favour. However such decisions are properly to be regarded (and I set out the case law earlier), the decision in this case is simply too brief to be of any assistance. It is the opinion of a civil servant expressed in one line, which even despite its brevity appears to be inconsistent with the case which the Appellant advanced before the district judge. It is certainly nowhere near decisive, and I decline to admit it. I cannot readily see how what happened (or did not happen) in the UK after his arrival here can have any bearing on the question of whether extradition would be Article 8 disproportionate."
(1) A conclusive grounds decision is made under the National Referral Mechanism by an official in the Single Competent Authority, which is a part of the Home Office;
(2) The decision is a paper-based decision made on a balance of probabilities;
(3) It answers the question whether the official can determine to the civil standard whether the person is or is not a victim of trafficking or slavery;
(4) The decision does not bind a court in any way;
(5) A court will decide for itself whether the person is or is not a victim of trafficking or slavery and may decide differently to the SCA official;
(6) The court should not normally delay extradition proceedings to await referrals to the NRM or decisions by the SCA under it;
(7) Normally does not mean never: each adjournment decision is fact-specific and evidence-based;
(8) However, the policy of the European Framework Decision, as now substantially reflected in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, is for extradition proceedings to be summary and streamlined and delay must have clear justification (see, for example, stipulated time limits in article 17 of the Framework);
(9) Neither ECAT nor the European Union Trafficking Directive (Parliament and Council Directive 2011/36/EU) provide any bar to extradition.
"61 Identified potential victims of slavery or human trafficking: recovery period
61.—Identified potential victims of slavery or human trafficking: recovery period
(1) This section applies to a person (an "identified potential victim") if—
(a) a decision is made by a competent authority that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking (a "positive reasonable grounds decision"), and
(b) that decision is not a further RG decision (as to which, see section 62).
(2) Subject to section 63(2), the identified potential victim may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom during the recovery period.
(3) The "recovery period", in relation to an identified potential victim, is the period—
a. beginning with the day on which the positive reasonable grounds decision is made, and
b. ending with whichever of the following is the later—
(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the identified potential victim;
(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a)."
Analysis: section 61
"An Act to make provision about nationality, asylum and immigration; to make provision about victims of slavery or human trafficking ...
"5. ... Insofar as the Explanatory Notes cast light on the objective setting or contextual scene of the statute, and the mischief at which it is aimed, such materials are therefore always admissible aids to construction. They may be admitted for what logical value they have. Used for this purpose Explanatory Notes will sometimes be more informative and valuable than reports of the Law Commission or advisory committees, Government green or white papers, and the like. After all, the connection of Explanatory Notes with the shape of the proposed legislation is closer than pre-parliamentary aids which in principle are already treated as admissible: see Cross, Statutory Interpretation, 3rd ed (1995), pp 160-161."
"1. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 has three main objectives:
· To increase the fairness of the system to better protect and support those in need of asylum;
· To deter illegal entry into the United Kingdom, thereby breaking the business model of people smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger; and
· To remove more easily those with no right to be in the United Kingdom."
"2. The United Kingdom's legal immigration system has been reformed by the ending of free movement and the introduction of a new points-based immigration system. This Act is intended to tackle illegal migration, reform the asylum system and control the UK borders.
3. Under new proposals, how someone enters the United Kingdom will impact on how a claim progresses through the system and the type of status granted in the UK if that claim is successful. The asylum framework will be streamlined, ensuring cases and appeals are dealt with more effectively, while improving the Home Office's ability to remove those with no right to remain, including Foreign National Offenders (FNOs). At the same time, the Government's aim is to strengthen safe and legal routes, offering protection to refugees fleeing persecution, and fixing historical anomalies in British nationality law."
"32 The Government remains committed to ensuring the police and the courts have the necessary powers to bring perpetrators of modern slavery to justice, while giving victims the support they need to rebuild their lives. The United Kingdom is a signatory of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT), which sets out signatory states' international obligations to identify and support victims of modern slavery.
33 When it is deemed that there are Reasonable Grounds (RG) to believe an individual is a victim of modern slavery, that individual is protected from removal (unless an exemption applies) for the 30-day recovery period or until they have received a Conclusive Grounds (CG) decision regarding whether they are a confirmed victim of modern slavery, whichever is longer. While individuals are protected from removal, they are also entitled to support in line with their needs."
"34 Most potential victims of modern slavery receive a positive decision. In 2020, the Single Competent Authority (SCA) made 10,608 reasonable grounds decisions, of which 92% (9,765) were positive. They also made 3,454 conclusive grounds decisions, of which 89% (3,084) were positive.
...
36 The Government wants to ensure that victims are identified and provided with support, and that any gaps in the system which allow for the NRM to be misused are addressed. This will avoid resources being diverted away from victims who need support and unnecessary impacts on removal actions. In 2021, the NRM system is estimated to have cost at least £80m."
"37 The measures outlined in this Act seek to ensure victims are identified as quickly as possible, while enabling decision makers to distinguish more effectively between genuine and non-genuine accounts of modern slavery and enabling the removal of serious criminals and people who pose a threat to United Kingdom national security.
38 There are concerns about the potential for a referral to the National Referral Mechanism to be used to frustrate Immigration Enforcement action or gain access to support inappropriately."
"42 This raises concerns that some referrals are being made late in the process to frustrate immigration action and that legitimate referrals are not being made in a timely way.
43 The modern slavery measures in this Act aims to set out the rights and entitlements of possible victims and to bring clarity to victims and decision-makers as to how decisions should be taken to ensure individuals are identified and supported as quickly as possible."
"58 Enforced returns refer to instances where the Home Office makes arrangements to remove immigration offenders or persons subject to a deportation order who do not intend to depart voluntarily from the United Kingdom. Voluntary return refers to any non-enforced departure of an individual with no right to remain."
"Extradition and expulsion
The second point related to the distinction between extradition and expulsion. Undoubtedly the purpose of the two procedures is different. The procedures serve different public interests. But in the context of the possible engagement of fundamental rights under the ECHR the Strasbourg court has not in its case law drawn a distinction between cases in the two categories: see Cruz Varas v Sweden (1991) 14 EHRR 1, 34, para 70. For my part I would also not do so."
"The meaning of words is a matter of dictionaries and grammars; the meaning of the document is what the parties using those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood to mean."
"The court's task is to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the parties have chosen to express their agreement. It has long been accepted that this is not a literalist exercise focused solely on a parsing of the wording of the particular clause but that the court must consider the contract as a whole ..."
"The modern approach to statutory interpretation requires the courts to ascertain the meaning of the words in a statute in the light of their context and purpose."
"The starting point is that language in all legal texts conveys meaning according to the circumstances in which it was used. It follows that the context must always be identified and considered before the process of construction or during it."
"...legislation should be read in its legal, social and historical context. The legislature intends the language of a statute, or statutory instrument, to be given an informed, rather than a literal meaning."
Conclusion: section 61
"... we do not consider that case workers in the Competent Authority are experts in human trafficking or modern slavery (whether generally or in respect of specified countries) and for that fundamental reason cannot give opinion evidence in a trial on the question whether an individual was trafficked or exploited. It is not sufficient to assume that because administrators are likely to gain experience in the type of decision-making they routinely undertake that, simply by virtue of that fact, they can be treated as experts in criminal proceedings."
"There is a constant and weighty public interest in extradition: that people accused of crimes should be brought to trial; that people convicted of crimes should serve their sentences; that the United Kingdom should honour its treaty obligations to other countries; and that there should be no "safe havens" to which either can flee in the belief that they will not be sent back."
"The principal issue
11 The Secretary of State now concedes that ""when determining an appeal that removal would breach rights protected by the ECHR, the tribunal is required to determine the relevant factual issues for itself on the basis of the evidence before it, albeit giving proper consideration and weight to any previous decision of the defendant authority (para 65 of the printed case). Hence it is now common ground that the tribunal is in no way bound by the decision reached under the NRM, nor does it have to look for public law reasons why that decision was flawed. This is an important matter. As the AIRE Centre and ECPAT UK point out, had the tribunal been bound by such decisions, it could have had a profoundly chilling effect upon the willingness of victims to engage with the NRM mechanism for fear that it would prejudice their prospects of a successful immigration appeal.
12 There are several reasons why the tribunal cannot be bound by the NRM decision. First, its jurisdiction is to hear appeals against the immigration decisions of officials: 2002 Act, section 82(1). It does not have jurisdiction judicially to review the decisions of the competent authority under the NRM. An appeal is intrinsically different from a judicial review.
13 Second, those appeals are clearly intended to involve the hearing of evidence and the making of factual findings on relevant matters in dispute. This is made clear both by the 2002 Act and the Rules. Section 85(4) provided: "On an appeal under section 82(1) . . . against a decision the tribunal may consider any matter which it thinks relevant to the substance of the decision, including a matter arising after the date of the decision. The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (SI 2014/2604) in rules 14 and 15, and the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) in rules 15 and 16, make detailed provision for the calling of witnesses and the production of documents."
"35. However, it is clear that there has not yet been an effective investigation of the breach of article 4. The police took no further action after passing him on to the social services department. It is not the task of the NRM to investigate possible criminal offences, although the competent authority may notify the police if it considers that offences have been committed: R (Hoang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] Imm AR 1272. The authorities are under a positive obligation to rectify that failure. And it is clear that an effective investigation cannot take place if MS is removed to Pakistan: the UT rightly held that "it is inconceivable that an effective police investigation and any ensuing prosecution could be conducted without the full assistance and co-operation of MS. Realistically this will not be feasible if he is removed to Pakistan" (para 64)."
"10. There is, of course, no suggestion that Latvia is itself engaged in human trafficking and it is plain that Latvia has in place appropriate laws which criminalise such activity. Furthermore, although various international reports placed before us make suggestions for improvement in the way in which Latvia can tackle human trafficking they fall far short of establishing the proposition that Latvia is failing to abide by its international obligations under the Anti-trafficking Convention or article 4 ECHR (The Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, 31 January 2013; Europol Situation Report, February 2016; US State Department report on Trafficking in People, 2015). A direct appeal to article 4 ECHR would require a requested person to rebut by evidence the strong presumption that the country concerned would abide by its international obligations under the ECHR: Krolik v Poland [2012] EWHC 2357 (Admin); [2013] 1 WLR 490. Alternatively, and by analogy with cases under article 3 when the risk of ill- treatment etc. comes from non-state actors, a requested person may, at least in theory, be able to show by reference to the circumstances of his case that the requesting state cannot provide sufficient protection: see the discussion in R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 38; [2005] 2 AC 668."
Conclusion