Lopetas v Minister of Justice for Lithuania

Unlawful detention arising from a defective extradition warrant does not, without more, amount to an abuse of process requiring discharge where proceedings are properly reinstituted under a valid warrant. The court must assess whether the conduct in question has the egregious character necessary to make continuation of extradition proceedings abusive. A procedural error may require further investigation only where it reasonably prompts suspicion of manipulation, bad faith or oppressive conduct. A corrected mistake, without evidence suggesting such conduct, does not ordinarily require an investigation or invalidate subsequent proceedings.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by District Judge Evans on 21 June 2007 under section 21(3), requiring his extradition to Lithuania.

Earlier proceedings had been discharged because of defects concerning the timing of production before the court and service of the warrant. A further warrant was then improperly certified, resulting in approximately 14 days’ detention. The warrant was subsequently reissued and properly certified. The central issues were whether the earlier defect constituted an abuse of process affecting the later proceedings, and whether the District Judge should have investigated the possibility of improper manipulation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s ruling and extradition order.
2. The court did not decide whether certification of the earlier warrant was lawful. That issue was immaterial because the question was whether the events surrounding the defective certification and later reissue constituted an abuse of process affecting proceedings brought under the valid warrant.
3. Any unlawfulness in detention resulting from the defective certification did not, by itself, taint the reinstitution of proceedings under the later properly certified warrant. The suggestion that discharge was required merely to avoid condoning the earlier unlawfulness was inappropriate in the circumstances.
4. The relevant conduct did not approach the egregious conduct considered in Bennett. The proceedings had been reinstituted without an identified error in the way that was done, and the respondent’s good faith was not challenged.
5. Applying the approach in Tollman [2006] EWCA 2256, an investigating judge’s obligation arises where the circumstances reasonably prompt suspicion of abuse or manipulation. Here, the mistake was capable of a straightforward explanation: the defective warrant had been reissued once the error was appreciated. There was no proper basis for suspecting skulduggery or bad faith, so the District Judge was not required to seek further information.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed; the order for extradition was upheld.
• District Judge Evans: On 21 June 2007, made an order for extradition under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 and rejected the abuse-of-process argument.