Rytmetis v Prosecutor General's Office Of The Republic Of Lithuania (Judicial Authority In A Category 1 Territory)

An extradition warrant must be read as a whole. For an accusation case, the court must decide whether it unequivocally shows that surrender is sought for criminal prosecution, applying a cosmopolitan approach to criminal procedure rather than assuming that foreign procedural stages correspond to English stages. Clear wording at the outset may not be displaced by references to pre-trial investigation. Extrinsic evidence should be considered only where the warrant is genuinely equivocal. An adjournment to obtain expert evidence on prison conditions or alleged corruption may properly be refused where sought late, the material facts are already accepted, and the proposed evidence is speculative.

The appellant challenged District Judge Evans’s order for his extradition to Lithuania to face theft-related charges. He argued that the European Arrest Warrant sought his return for investigation rather than prosecution, contrary to sections 2(2)(a) and 2(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. He also argued that surrender would breach Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of an earlier assault, alleged corruption and prison conditions.

The appellant additionally sought an adjournment to obtain expert evidence. The central issues were whether the warrant clearly established a prosecution purpose, whether the human-rights challenge disclosed an arguable bar to extradition, and whether the adjournment should be granted.

1. Warrant and statutory requirements. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant expressly requested arrest and surrender for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. Read as a whole, it therefore satisfied the statutory requirement and was not rendered equivocal by references in box (f) to hiding from pre-trial investigation.
2. The court applied the principles in Thompson v the Public Prosecutor of Boulogne [2008] EWHC 2787 (Admin), Johnson v France [2009] EWHC 2830 (Admin), Asztalos v Szekszard City Court [2010] EWHC 237 (Admin) and Fox v Public Prosecutor's Office, Landshut, Germany [2010] EWHC 513 (Admin). The warrant must be considered as a whole. The court must avoid a parochial assumption that foreign pre-trial investigation is necessarily separate from, or prior to, criminal proceedings. Extrinsic evidence is a last resort and should be discouraged except in exceptional cases.
3. The description of the alleged conduct indicated that investigation had already occurred, while the warrant’s opening words were unequivocal. The warrant consequently demonstrated that extradition was sought for criminal prosecution.
4. Articles 2 and 3. The District Judge’s reasoning disclosed no material error. Even if the Article 2 test had been stated incorrectly, the Article 3 test applied was accurate and imposed the lower threshold, so the error could not affect the result. The District Judge was entitled to accept the account of the assault while noting that the appellant had not sought protection from the Lithuanian authorities and had produced no evidence of judicial corruption. Protective measures could be taken if imprisonment were required.
5. Adjournment. The application for an adjournment was refused. It was made very late, and the appellant could not identify evidence that would alter the favourable factual assumptions already made. The proposed expert report was therefore a fishing expedition. The court adopted the approach in Baranauskas v Lithuania [2009] EWHC 1859 (Admin). The appeal was dismissed and costs were subject to detailed assessment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against District Judge Evans’s extradition order dismissed. Costs subject to detailed assessment.