Skruodys v Siauliai City District Court Lithuania

An appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 may be allowed or dismissed only within the powers conferred by section 27. The court cannot grant a collateral remedy, such as restoring surrendered travel documents, where the statutory appeal provides no basis for intervention. Sympathy for an appellant’s wish to return voluntarily to face proceedings cannot enlarge the court’s jurisdiction. Where the appellant candidly accepts that there is no ground of appeal, the appeal must be dismissed.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham on 26 March 2007 during uncontested extradition proceedings. A European arrest warrant had been issued by the Lithuanian authorities in connection with an allegation of misappropriation. The claimant wished to return voluntarily to Lithuania but sought restoration of his passport, surrendered as a condition of bail. He accepted that he had no substantive ground of appeal. The central issue was whether the Divisional Court had power to grant that relief.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court had only the statutory options of allowing or dismissing the appeal.
2. The court had no power, within this appeal, to restore the claimant’s passport or otherwise facilitate his voluntary return to Lithuania. The claimant’s understandable wish to return voluntarily could not enlarge the statutory jurisdiction.
3. The claimant candidly accepted that there was nothing before the court capable of founding an appeal. In those circumstances, the statutory appeal could not succeed.
4. The court declined to make a certification concerning a point of law of general public importance under section 32(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, considering that it was unnecessary.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the order of Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham dated 26 March 2007.