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

An extradition request contains sufficient particulars where, read as a whole, it enables the requested person to understand the case to be met on return. The question whether a person is sought for prosecution must be assessed from the warrant in its proper context. The statutory language is construed in a cosmopolitan sense, rather than by reference only to domestic criminal-procedure stages. Extrinsic evidence is relevant only where the warrant is equivocal. Matters concerning the treatment of co-accused do not ordinarily determine whether the individual is sought for prosecution.

The Prosecutor General's Office of Lithuania sought the appellant's return under a European Arrest Warrant concerning an alleged conspiracy to import cocaine. The District Judge found that the offence was an extradition offence and that surrender was compatible with Convention rights, and ordered extradition.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the warrant lacked particulars required by section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, that he was wanted only on suspicion rather than for trial, and that extradition would engage article 3. The central issues were whether the warrant adequately described the accusation and whether it clearly sought return for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution.

1. Article 3. The newspaper article relied upon did not name the appellant. The article 3 argument was therefore tenuous and was rejected.
2. Particulars. Although the European Arrest Warrant was not easy to read, its particulars, taken as a whole, described the alleged organisation of a criminal group, the intended acquisition and importation of cocaine, the roles of the accomplices, and the appellant's alleged instructions and provision of funds and travel arrangements. They were sufficient to enable him to know the case he would have to meet. The requirements of section 2(4)(c) were therefore satisfied. Further information obtained from Lithuania was confirmatory only and was not needed to cure the warrant.
3. Purpose of return. Mere suspicion is insufficient to place a person in the category of an accused person, as recognised in Re Ismail [1999] 1 AC 320. The principles summarised in Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court, Hungary [2011] 1 WLR 252 required the wording of section 2(3)(a) and (b) to be construed in a cosmopolitan sense. The warrant expressly requested arrest and surrender for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution and, read as a whole, was not equivocal. The position of other alleged participants was irrelevant to that conclusion.
4. The appeal was dismissed. No further adjournment or further enquiry was justified.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal from the District Judge's extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates' Court — District Judge Zani held that the offence was an extradition offence, extradition was compatible with Convention rights, and ordered extradition. No citation is stated in the judgment.