Cebelis v Prosecutor-General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania

In proceedings under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, the English court should not undertake a detailed inquiry into the requesting state’s criminal law to determine whether the alleged conduct constitutes the specified offence. The particulars in a European Arrest Warrant must be sufficiently clear to identify the accusation and the alleged conduct, but need not provide a detailed analysis of foreign law. An adjournment to obtain evidence concerning alleged Convention risks requires more than assertion or speculation. The requested person must produce sufficient material to establish at least a prima facie issue requiring further evidence.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Lithuania. The European Arrest Warrant concerned accusations of murder and other offences. The claimant argued that the warrant did not comply with section 2(4)(c), because its particulars did not establish under Lithuanian law that his alleged conduct amounted to murder.

He also relied on Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, alleging risks concerning legal aid and protection in custody. He sought an adjournment to obtain supporting evidence. The central issues were whether the warrant was sufficiently particularised and whether the appeal or adjournment application was justified by the evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The application for an adjournment was refused, and the appellant’s publicly funded costs were assessed.
2. The warrant contained sufficiently detailed particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. It alleged that the appellant participated in an organised group which had conspired to kill the victim, that he was present and played a role in the events, and that the group committed the killing. The particulars were neither vague nor obscure. No further definition of the term “conspired” was required for the statutory requirements to be met.
3. The English court’s function under the European Arrest Warrant scheme does not include deciding whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under the requesting state’s law. That would require detailed examination of foreign law and could involve expert evidence, undermining the simpler and quicker procedure based on mutual recognition and confidence between Member States.
4. The court applied the approach in Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Armas [2005] UKHL 67, including Lord Hope’s statement that the judge need not concern himself with the criminal law of the requesting state when considering whether the offence specified in the warrant is an extradition offence. The same approach applied to the present challenge to the particulars.
5. The reasoning in Boudhiba v Central Examining Court No 5 of the National Court of Justice, Madrid, Spain [2006] EWHC 167 (Admin) was persuasive and correctly reached. The court was not required to determine whether the alleged conduct fitted the legal provisions of the requesting state.
6. Peter von der Pahlen v Austria [2006] EWHC 1672 (Admin) was distinguishable. That warrant had been too vague because it omitted important particulars of the alleged fraud. The warrant in the present case provided adequate particulars of the alleged murder.
7. The Convention-based arguments were unsupported by evidence. There was no sufficient material showing that the appellant needed and would be denied legal aid, or that he faced a real risk of death or treatment contrary to Article 3. The period since arrest and the extradition hearing had provided adequate time to obtain persuasive evidence. The requested adjournment therefore had no proper basis and the appeal could not succeed on the Convention grounds.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the extradition order and refused the application for an adjournment.
• City of Westminster Magistrates' Court: District Judge Evans ordered extradition to Lithuania on 28 September 2006.