Kuprevicius, R (on the application of) v Vice Minister of Justice Ministry of Justice Lithuania

For a post-conviction European arrest warrant to satisfy section 2(5)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003, it need not use the precise words “unlawfully at large”. The requirement is met where, taking the warrant as a whole, that status can properly be inferred. The court may draw reasonable inferences from the warrant, but must not fill an evidential gap by guesswork. A warrant may therefore comply where it identifies an effective and enforceable conviction, states that the person was to be detained, and records that he absconded from serving the sentence.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a decision of District Judge Evans at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court ordering his extradition to Lithuania. He had been acquitted at first instance but convicted and sentenced on appeal. He had not begun serving the sentence.

The warrant described the appellate judgment as enforceable and having the same effect as an arrest warrant. It stated that the claimant had absconded from serving his sentence, but did not expressly allege that he was unlawfully at large. The central issue was whether the warrant nevertheless satisfied section 2(5)(a).

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant complied with section 2(5)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The requirement that a post-conviction warrant state that the person is alleged to be unlawfully at large must be met, although the warrant need not use those exact words. The court may infer the necessary allegation from the contents of the warrant read as a whole.
3. The approach was guided by Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67; [2005] 3 WLR 1079. The statutory safeguard remained important, but the court should avoid technical objections that frustrate extradition. Equally, a gap in the information could not be filled by mere guesswork.
4. The District Judge was entitled to infer that no further judicial order or process was required upon the claimant’s return. The warrant described the Court of Appeal judgment as effective and enforceable, stated that it had the same effect as an arrest warrant, recorded that the claimant was liable to serve the sentence, and stated that he had absconded from serving it.
5. The court did not need to decide whether a later letter from the Lithuanian Vice Minister was admissible, because the warrant itself contained sufficient information. Toulson J agreed, adding that the admissibility issue would arise only if the warrant contained an ambiguity requiring resolution by other material.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Evans ordered extradition on 30 April 2006.