Basciulis v Prosecutor General Office of Vilnius Lithuania

An appellant should ordinarily raise every ground and call supporting evidence before the district judge in extradition proceedings. A new ground will be admitted on appeal only where a good and justifiable reason explains its omission below. In the absence of such a reason, and where the ground is unsupported by evidence, the appeal cannot succeed.

The appellant faced extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant concerning assault and threats to kill. The extradition hearing before the district judge was uncontested. On appeal, a challenge concerning the issuing authority was abandoned following a Supreme Court decision. The appellant also relied on alleged danger in Lithuanian prisons, a ground not raised before the district judge and unsupported by evidence. The court determined whether that ground could properly be relied on for the first time on appeal.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The challenge to the status of the issuing authority had been abandoned.
2. The court held that matters relied on in an extradition appeal should ordinarily be argued before the district judge, with supporting evidence called at that stage. A new matter may be raised on appeal only where there is a good reason for the omission. No satisfactory or justifiable reason had been provided for introducing the prison-safety ground late.
3. In any event, the allegation that Lithuanian prisons were unsafe and that the appellant feared for his life was wholly unsupported by evidence. The ground therefore could not establish an arguable basis for disturbing the extradition decision.
4. The court extended the time for removal under Extradition Act, section 36(3)(b), so that the period would begin when the decision in the respondent’s related appeal became final, and approved the draft order.

1. District judge: Extradition was ordered following an uncontested hearing on 20 December 2011.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The newly raised prison-safety ground was rejected because it had not been raised below without good reason and was unsupported by evidence.