Ladyga v Prosecutor Generals Office Lithuania

Where an extradition arrest warrant has been issued by a prosecutor, the question whether the prosecutor is an appropriate judicial authority must be determined in accordance with the applicable Supreme Court authority. Once that authority establishes that a prosecutor is competent to issue the warrant, a ground of appeal challenging the warrant on that basis cannot succeed.

The appellant’s extradition appeal had a protracted procedural history. Collins J had previously determined the outstanding human-rights issues under Articles 8 and 3. The remaining issue concerned whether an arrest warrant issued by a prosecutor was issued by an appropriate judicial authority. That issue awaited the Supreme Court’s decision in Assange. Following that decision, the Administrative Court determined the outstanding ground.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The human-rights issues under Articles 8 and 3 had already been decided by Collins J on 7 February 2012.
2. The only remaining issue was whether the prosecutor who issued the arrest warrant was an appropriate judicial authority.
3. The Supreme Court had decided in Assange that a prosecutor was an appropriate judicial authority for this purpose. The court therefore dismissed the outstanding ground of appeal.
4. The dismissal effectively disposed of the appeal. The court also explained that the usual period was 14 days for an application to certify a point of public importance, followed, after expiry of that period, by the 10-day period for removal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Collins J determined the appellant’s human-rights arguments under Articles 8 and 3 on 7 February 2012.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the outstanding challenge to the prosecutor’s status as an appropriate judicial authority was dismissed, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Assange.