Puskunigis, R (on the application of) v Prosecutor General's Office Lithuania

On an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court determines whether the statutory grounds of appeal are made out. It does not decide whether the appellant is factually guilty of the offences alleged in the requesting state. Where two alleged offences arise from the same course of conduct, that does not prevent both offences from being extradition offences if each satisfies the statutory requirements.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Purdy’s order of 11 May 2012 directing his return to Lithuania to face two charges arising from the same alleged conduct.

The appeal was initially advanced on the basis of section 4(3), concerning the time within which a person arrested under a Part 1 warrant must be brought before the appropriate judge. That issue had been resolved before the district judge, who held the operative warrant valid. The claimant also argued that he could not be guilty because the child concerned was his. The central issues were whether the appeal disclosed a valid ground and whether the court could examine that factual assertion.

1. The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed. The claimant had not advanced a sustainable challenge to the district judge’s conclusion that the operative warrant was valid.

2. The argument based on section 4(3) had been dealt with before the district judge. Although there had initially been an issue about whether the claimant had been arrested under one or both warrants, that matter had been resolved. The warrant under which return was sought remained valid.

3. The court could not determine whether the claimant was guilty of the alleged conduct. His assertion that the child was his, and therefore that no false information had been supplied, was a matter for determination in Lithuania and did not provide a basis for allowing the extradition appeal.

4. The two alleged offences were aiding or abetting the making of a false or forged document and aiding or abetting the attempt to obtain or verify a forged document by presenting it to an official. Although both charges arose from the same course of conduct, each was clearly an extradition offence.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
• District Judge Purdy: On 11 May 2012, ordered the claimant’s return to Lithuania and held the operative warrant valid.