Antonovic, R (on the application of) v The Prosecutor General's Office (A Lithuanian Judicial Authority)

In extradition proceedings, an Article 3 bar requires proof of a real risk of relevant ill-treatment. Where the risk comes from private persons, the requested person must show that the requesting state cannot or will not take necessary protective steps. Authorities concerning Convention states and the weight to be given to their assurances bind a first-instance judge. Article 8 requires a balance between the requested person’s circumstances and the strong public interest in honouring extradition requests. Family separation will bar extradition only in sufficiently exceptional circumstances. The seriousness and cumulative nature of the alleged offending, the length and character of the family life, and the possibility of family life elsewhere are relevant to proportionality.

The claimant appealed against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Lithuania under a European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned allegations of theft of a mobile telephone, damage to a motor vehicle and attempted theft, and further criminal damage arising from the same incident.

He argued that extradition would breach Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Article 3 case relied on past violence and threats from criminal gang members, reports concerning detention conditions in Lithuania, and alleged police mistreatment. The Article 8 case relied on separation from his wife and recently born child and the alleged minor nature of the offences. The central issues were whether there was a sufficient risk of ill-treatment and whether extradition would be disproportionate.

1. Article 3. The burden lay on the requested person, on the balance of probabilities, to establish an Article 3 bar. A breach may arise from a real risk of ill-treatment by state officials. Where the risk is from private persons, it must also be shown that the requesting state cannot or will not take the necessary protective steps.
2. The Administrative Court was bound by the existing line of authority concerning Convention states, including Baranauskas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania [2009] EWHC 1859 (Admin) and Rot v District Court of Lublin Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin). The court had to give respect to Lithuania’s undertaking to consider and provide appropriate protection on return. The reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture required credence, but did not establish a sufficient individual risk.
3. The claimant’s evidence, including his failure to report an earlier attack and the absence of evidence that the Lithuanian authorities had failed to act when informed of later events, did not establish the required risk. Article 3 therefore did not bar extradition.
4. Article 8. The assessment required a balancing exercise between the claimant’s personal and family circumstances and the strong public interest in maintaining and honouring extradition requests, as explained in Norris v United States [2010] UKSC. Family separation can in an exceptional case justify discharge, but the threshold is high.
5. The alleged offences were not merely trivial when considered cumulatively. The claimant’s family life in the United Kingdom was not long-standing, and there was no sufficient reason why it could not continue elsewhere after he had been dealt with in Lithuania. The extradition was proportionate under Article 8.
6. The appeal was dismissed. Legal aid assessment was granted.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed. The court upheld the findings that extradition did not breach Articles 3 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.