Cepkauskas, R (on the application of) v District Court of Marijampole Lithuania

Under sections 11.1(c) and 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, whether delay makes extradition unjust or oppressive requires an overall judgment on the statutory words. Ordinary hardship is insufficient. Relevant factors include responsibility for delay, the seriousness of the alleged offences, the requested person’s age, any false sense of security, and established family and other life ties. On the facts, prolonged unexplained delay, the claimant’s youth, his settled life and family in the United Kingdom, and the absence of proof that he had evaded the Lithuanian authorities made extradition oppressive.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Purdey’s order of 23 November 2010 requiring his extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant alleged five offences committed in 1997, comprising four vehicle thefts and an assault.

The district judge rejected arguments based on the passage of time and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issue before Burnett J was whether the delay made extradition oppressive.

1. Appeal allowed. The claimant was discharged because extradition would be oppressive.
2. Sections 11.1(c) and 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 require an overall judgment on the statutory words. The relevant period runs from commission of the alleged offences to the first occasion on which the requested person can raise the statutory bar.
3. The distinction in Kakis v Government of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779 remained material: injustice primarily concerns prejudice to the trial, while oppression concerns hardship resulting from changes in the accused’s circumstances. Delay caused by flight, concealment or evasion is generally discounted. Otherwise, its effect is more important than its cause.
4. Under Gomes v the Government of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21, oppression is not readily established and ordinary hardship is insufficient. The seriousness of the alleged offences may affect the assessment.
5. The claimant had not been shown to have given a false address or otherwise evaded the Lithuanian authorities. The contradictory and erroneous material supplied by those authorities did not establish evasion.
6. The cumulative circumstances moved the case beyond hardship into oppression. They included the claimant’s youth when the offences were allegedly committed, more than 13 years’ unexplained delay, a false sense of security, relatively modest seriousness of the alleged offences, and substantial family and other ties in the United Kingdom.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Burnett J allowed the section 26 appeal against District Judge Purdey’s order of 23 November 2010 and discharged the claimant.