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

Article 8 will rarely justify refusing extradition that is otherwise lawful. The relevant threshold is whether the individual circumstances, considered both separately and cumulatively, amount to striking and unusual facts making extradition disproportionate. Personal relationships, pregnancy and a settled life in the United Kingdom will not ordinarily meet that threshold without substantial evidence of the practical consequences. The seriousness or triviality of the alleged offence is not identified by the Extradition Act 2003 as a legitimate Article 8 consideration, although the nature of the alleged conduct may be relevant to the proportionality assessment.

Kristina Dirsyte appealed against District Judge Wickham’s decision of 3 September 2008 ordering her extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought her surrender for prosecution for allegedly giving false evidence during a pre-trial investigation. She relied on Article 8, referring to her life in England, her relationship, pregnancy and the alleged triviality of the offence. The central issue was whether those matters, taken individually or collectively, made extradition disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that extradition was compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights under section 21(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The applicable Article 8 threshold is the presence of striking and unusual facts which make an otherwise lawful extradition disproportionate. The assessment must consider the matters relied upon both individually and collectively. The approach reflected Jaso, Lopez & Hernandez v Central Criminal Court No. 2 Madrid [2007] EWHC 2983 (Admin). The practical reality, as stated in R (Ahsan) v Director of Public Prosecutions and other cases [2008] EWHC 666 (Admin), is that Article 8 will rarely provide a ground for refusing extradition.
3. The Extradition Act 2003 does not identify the triviality of the offence as a legitimate consideration when deciding whether extradition should be granted. In any event, the alleged conduct was not trivial: it involved four statements over 15 months, allegedly intended to prevent prosecution for a serious criminal offence. The maximum Lithuanian sentence was two years’ imprisonment, twice the minimum specified in section 64(3)(c).
4. The appellant’s relationship did not amount to a striking or unusual feature. There was no evidence about whether her boyfriend could obtain permission to enter or remain in Lithuania. Pregnancy, without evidence about how it would be dealt with by the Lithuanian authorities in the event of custody, was likewise insufficient. Nor was extradition necessarily permanent, since conviction and imprisonment were uncertain and the maximum sentence was limited.
5. Sir Anthony May agreed with Maddison J, including that the seriousness or other features of the extradition offence would not ordinarily provide striking or unusual features for Article 8 purposes.

• District Judge: District Judge Wickham ordered extradition on 3 September 2008.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that decision was dismissed.