Dikmonas, R (on the application of) v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania

In an appeal against extradition under the Extradition Act 2003, the High Court may intervene only within the statutory limits governing appeals against extradition orders. A European Arrest Warrant issued by a European Union member state is approached on the basis of mutual trust and co-operation. The requesting state is presumed capable of protecting the person against an unfair retrial and of conducting proceedings fairly. It is also presumed capable of treating a prisoner consistently with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. General allegations of corruption, unfairness, unreliable evidence or family hardship do not establish a statutory basis for discharge. A pending application to the European Court of Human Rights does not provide a reason to adjourn or prevent execution of the warrant.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Evans’s order for his extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant. He had been convicted in Lithuania of drug-related offences and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He challenged the assertion in the warrant that he had been present at the original trial and alleged that the Lithuanian criminal proceedings involved corruption, unreliable evidence and breaches of Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also relied on a pending application to the European Court of Human Rights and requested an adjournment so that he could obtain representation.

The central issues were whether the District Judge had erred in deciding that the claimant had been present at trial, whether the alleged unfairness or ill-treatment engaged a statutory exception to extradition, and whether the pending Strasbourg proceedings justified delaying the appeal.

1. The appeal was dismissed. It was wholly without merit, and the court declined to adjourn it. The execution of the European Arrest Warrant was to proceed.
2. Sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 define the limited scope of an appeal. An appeal may raise a question of law or fact, but it may succeed only where the appropriate judge ought to have decided an issue differently and, on the correct decision, would have been required to order the person’s discharge. The same consequence applies to a genuinely new issue or evidence satisfying the statutory conditions.
3. The District Judge was entitled to rely on the clear and unequivocal statement in the warrant that the claimant had been present at the original trial. The evidence from the claimant’s partner and son did not demonstrate an error in that conclusion.
4. The European Arrest Warrant system rests on mutual trust and co-operation between member states. Lithuania, as a member state of the European Union and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, had to be approached on the basis that it was capable of protecting the claimant against an unjust retrial and of conducting any retrial fairly. The 2006 trial was likewise to be presumed fair.
5. The court also had to assume that any sentence served in Lithuania would not involve treatment contrary to Article 3. The claimant’s general allegations of corruption, unfairness and evidential unreliability did not displace those assumptions or establish a basis for discharge.
6. The pending Strasbourg application did not require the claimant to remain in the United Kingdom. Any remedy arising from the Lithuanian proceedings lay, so far as available, in that forum.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Evans’s extradition order was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.