Montvydas v District Court of Klaffadorys

On an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, the High Court may allow the appeal only where the statutory conditions in section 27 are satisfied. New evidence must be capable of changing the extradition judge’s decision so that discharge would have been required. The court should respect the statutory procedures governing extradition and should not generally investigate the merits of the requesting state’s criminal process or law. Alleged procedural defects abroad will not justify discharge unless the evidence establishes a sufficiently serious violation of the requested person’s rights. Where the evidence instead supports regularity, and no statutory ground of appeal is made out, the appeal must be dismissed.

The claimant appealed against an order made by District Judge Tubbs on 9 February 2007 directing his extradition to Lithuania under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. He relied on advice from a Lithuanian lawyer that he might reopen the decision revoking his conditional release and thereby avoid serving the balance of his sentence.

Further material alleged that he and his defender had not been personally informed of the hearing at which his conditional release was revoked. The central issues were whether that material satisfied section 27(4) and whether the alleged defects in the Lithuanian proceedings required the extradition order to be set aside.

1. Appeal dismissed. The material relied on by the claimant did not satisfy the statutory conditions for allowing an appeal under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. It did not show that the extradition judge would have decided a question differently and would consequently have been required to order discharge.

2. The court emphasised the need for careful observance of the statutory extradition procedures, adopting the principle stated by Lord Hope in Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and Another [2006] 2 AC 1. The liberty of the requested person must be balanced against the rights of persons sought under the statutory scheme.

3. The merits of the Lithuanian process and questions of Lithuanian criminal law were not matters for determination in these proceedings. The court relied on Lord Hope’s reasoning in Dabas v The High Court of Justice Madrid [2007] 2 WLR 254, that the European arrest warrant system depends on judicial co-operation and is not intended to require detailed scrutiny of the requesting state’s criminal law.

4. The latest material did not establish that the claimant had been denied notice of the hearing at which his licence was revoked. The official report showed contact between him, his family and the Lithuanian authorities. The lawyer’s own material indicated that the claimant was represented and that his defender later appealed the revocation decision. The proper inference was that the claimant and his lawyers knew of the proposed proceedings and chose not to attend, apparently for tactical reasons. In any event, the evidence could not satisfy the court that a sufficiently serious violation of his rights had occurred.

5. The claimant remained on bail under section 21(4), subject to the stated opportunity to apply for permission to appeal further and the subsequent removal arrangements.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against District Judge Tubbs’s extradition order of 9 February 2007 was dismissed.