Kaupaitis v Prosecutor General, Republic of Lithuania

On an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the refusal to issue a witness summons could not, without more, provide a basis for allowing the extradition appeal. Where the requested witness’s evidence might materially support an argument that delay had caused injustice or oppression, the appropriate procedural route was to renew the related judicial review application out of time and hear it with the extradition appeal. The court adjourned both matters and extended the statutory time limit for disposal.

The claimant appealed against the Bow Street Magistrates’ Court order of 27 April 2006 requiring his extradition to Lithuania under a European arrest warrant. The allegations concerned fraud and other financial misconduct occurring in 1997 and 1998. The claimant relied on the passage of time between his arrest and investigation in Lithuania and his later arrest in the United Kingdom, arguing that delay had caused injustice or oppression.

He sought evidence and documents from Mr Le Blanc, formerly connected with LITE College, but applications for a witness summons had been refused. The central procedural issue was whether the refusal could found the extradition appeal or whether judicial review was the appropriate route.

1. Appeal and related application adjourned. The court held that the appeal could not presently assist the claimant because the mere refusal to issue a witness summons did not itself establish a ground on which the extradition appeal could be allowed.
2. The claimant accepted that, without the proposed witness material, he could not yet advance full argument on whether the passage of time had caused injustice or oppression. The evidence was potentially relevant both to the availability of material supporting his defence and to the alleged prejudice caused by delay.
3. The appropriate procedural course was to grant permission to renew out of time the application for judicial review of the refusal to issue the summons. The renewed permission application was to be heard together with the extradition appeal. If permission were granted, the substantive judicial review claim would also be heard with the appeal.
4. The court extended the time limits under the Extradition Act 2003 for disposal of the matter until 14 July 2006 and adjourned both proceedings to a date as soon as possible before that date.
5. Lord Justice Latham subsequently directed that the judgment be corrected to record that the warrant also concerned obtaining plane tickets without payment and other conduct relating to the operation of the claimant’s company, and that the warrant did not allege that LITE College was involved in the transactions.

• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court ordered the claimant’s extradition to Lithuania on 27 April 2006 pursuant to a European arrest warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court) adjourned the extradition appeal, granted permission to renew out of time the judicial review permission application, directed that the matters be heard together, and extended the disposal time limit to 14 July 2006.