RM v HM Advocate

[3] The Sheriff accepted that the appellant had not known anything of the criminal proceedings against him until he was arrested in Scotland , pursuant to the EAW, in February 2010. The appellant's movements were that he had changed his address in Latvia sometime before going to Denmark at the end of April 2008. He had returned to Latvia in March 2009, but not to any of his previous addresses. In September 2009 he had again left Latvia and it is then that he appears to have come to Scotland .

In so finding, and determining that no injustice or oppression would arise in terms of sections 11 and 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, the Sheriff applied the dictum of Lord Clarke in Campbell v HM Advocate 2008 JC 265 (at paragraph [48]), that where delay is alleged, the focus is not principally on the length of time but on the effect which it has had, or will have, on the individual. The appellant's family circumstances were part of the equation. All the facts required to be considered.

[7] On the general issue of delay, therefore, the court does not consider that there has been any significant lapse of time in relation to the prosecution of the revenue offences and the issue and execution of the EAW which can be seen as causing any injustice or oppression. The appeal must be refused.