Semionovas v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania

An extradition warrant remains valid despite an apparent error in stating the number of offences where its factual particulars identify the substance of the allegations clearly and unambiguously. The question is whether the requested person understands the case to be met on return. If an European arrest warrant fails to contain particulars required by section 2(4) of the Act, it is not a Part 1 warrant. However, a discrepancy between one offence and two offences does not invalidate the warrant where the allegations and the relevant offences are sufficiently particularised.

An accusation European arrest warrant was issued by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania and certified by SOCA. It stated that it related to one offence, although its contents identified robbery and destruction of or damage to property as two offences.

Following a contested extradition hearing, District Judge Evans rejected the challenge under section 2(4)(c) and ordered extradition. The appellant appealed, arguing that the warrant was invalid because it should have stated that it related to two offences. The central issue was whether the discrepancy deprived the warrant of the statutory particulars required for a valid Part 1 warrant.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant clearly and unambiguously set out the case which the appellant would face on return. The fact that it stated that there was one offence, while its contents described two offences, did not invalidate it.
2. The respondent accepted that, if an European arrest warrant failed to contain the particulars required by section 2(4) of the Act, it would not constitute a Part 1 warrant. The court proceeded on that basis.
3. The statutory requirement concerning particulars was directed to the substance and clarity of the accusation. The warrant described the alleged robbery, the property taken, the violence to the victim and the damage allegedly caused by the appellant. The appellant therefore could not be in doubt about the case against him.
4. The court noted the appellant's reliance on Skrzypczak v The Circuit Court in Poznan, Poland, in which the judge had similarly concluded that the appellant was not in doubt about the case to be met. No detailed review of the authorities was necessary because the warrant itself was sufficiently clear.
5. The District Judge's alternative reasoning based on Articles 11.2 and 12.2 of the Polish Penal Code was not relied upon by the respondent and did not form the basis of the decision. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the warrant complied sufficiently with the statutory requirement.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the extradition decision was dismissed.
• District Judge Evans: written judgment dated 4 December 2012 rejected the challenge to the warrant under section 2(4)(c) and ordered extradition.