The Government of Lithuania v AI

Article 8 may exceptionally defeat a European arrest warrant where unusual and exceptionally compelling circumstances make the interference with private life disproportionate. The court must weigh the interests of extradition against the individual consequences of removal. Relevant considerations may include the limited remaining sentence, the requesting state’s willingness to permit service of the sentence in the United Kingdom, serious trauma and medical needs arising from trafficking, loss of established support and accommodation, and the person’s continuing assistance to a United Kingdom police investigation. The decision is highly fact-sensitive. Truly exceptional circumstances should not be treated as establishing wider principles.

The Government of Lithuania appealed against a decision of District Judge Riddle at Westminster City Magistrates’ Court, who had discharged AI under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003. AI was wanted under a European arrest warrant to serve the balance of a Lithuanian sentence for fraud after breaching the conditions of her conditional release.

The District Judge had accepted that AI had been trafficked into prostitution in the United Kingdom, had suffered serious trauma and illness, and was assisting the United Kingdom police with investigations into trafficking. He concluded that there was a real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR in prison in Lithuania. On appeal, AI also relied on Article 8, supported in part by further evidence. The central issue was whether her particular circumstances made extradition disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court did not need to determine whether the District Judge was correct on Article 3. It dismissed the appeal on the Article 8 ground.
2. For Article 8 to defeat a European arrest warrant, unusual or exceptionally compelling circumstances are required. The relevant question is whether the interests of justice served by extradition outweigh the serious interference with the person’s private life.
3. The court identified a combination of exceptional factors: AI had already served a substantial proportion of her sentence, including time spent in custody in the United Kingdom; Lithuania was content, if possible, for her to serve the balance in the United Kingdom; and the relevant release provisions indicated that continued imprisonment was not sought in practical terms.
4. AI’s accepted status as a trafficking victim, her serious illness and mental trauma, her need for long-term specialist support, and the loss of secure accommodation and support on extradition were important personal circumstances.
5. Her assistance to the United Kingdom police, and the evidence that removal would damage the investigation and trial process, provided a further factor directly connected with the interests of justice.
6. Taken together, those matters clearly outweighed the interests of justice in extradition. The conclusion was specific to the circumstances as they had developed. Lord Justice Leveson agreed and emphasised that the case was truly exceptional and should not be used to derive wider principles of law.

• Westminster City Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Riddle discharged AI under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, holding that extradition created a real risk of breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The Government of Lithuania’s appeal was dismissed. The court declined to determine the Article 3 issue and upheld the result on the basis of Article 8.