Sidlauskaite v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania

In an extradition warrant, the alleged conduct must be identified with sufficient certainty, but the court need not impose the technical detail required in an indictment or civil pleading. In the European Arrest Warrant context, the warrant should be read in the light of the intended simpler, quicker and more effective procedure, while maintaining accuracy, fairness and statutory vigilance. A description of dishonest taking of another’s property, causing deprivation and loss, sufficiently identifies conduct amounting to theft.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for her extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant alleged that she had misappropriated entrusted property, including identification documents, a mobile telephone and a bank card, causing stated financial loss.

The appeal concerned whether “misappropriated” supplied sufficiently particular conduct under section 2(4)(c), and whether the conduct described would constitute an offence in England and Wales under section 64(3)(b).

1. Appeal dismissed. The grounds under sections 2(4)(c) and 64(3)(b) stood or fell together. Both depended on whether “misappropriation”, read in the context of the warrant, had a sufficiently certain meaning.
2. The warrant alleged dishonest taking of property belonging to another for the claimant’s own use. The reference to property damage indicated deprivation of the property and loss in the stated amount. The warrant therefore provided sufficient particulars for section 2(4)(c).
3. The described conduct clearly corresponded to theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. The condition in section 64(3)(b) was satisfied, and a determination under section 64(3)(c) was available.
4. The court considered Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and another [2005] UKHL 67 and applied the approach stated in Fofana & Belise v Deputy Prosecutor Thubin Tribunal De Grande Instance De Meaux, France [2006] EWHC 744 (Admin). A warrant need not satisfy the technical specificity required of an indictment or civil pleading, although it must contain an accurate and fair description and the statutory procedure must be strictly observed.
5. Strictness and vigilance are compatible with avoiding fine technical arguments about individual translated words. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed, upholding the District Judge’s extradition order.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Purdy ordered extradition on 12 October 2006.