Paredinis v Darius Valys, Prosecutor General, Lithuania

For extradition, the requested offence need not correspond word-for-word with an offence in England and Wales. The court must assess whether the conduct alleged in the warrant would amount to an equivalent domestic offence. Conduct involving men acting together, alcohol and insulting language towards a police officer could satisfy Public Order Act 1986, section 5, because it would be likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Extradition will not be disproportionate merely because the offences are relatively minor or the requested person has established employment and private life in the United Kingdom. Delay and Article 8 considerations must be assessed in context, including the nature of the alleged offending.

An accusation European arrest warrant issued by the Prosecutor General of Lithuania sought the appellant’s extradition for prosecution in relation to conduct alleged to have occurred on 7 July 2009. The allegations concerned disruption of public order involving criminal damage, violent resistance to arrest, and humiliating or insulting police officers.

The Senior District Judge ordered extradition on 17 December 2012. The appellant challenged that decision on three grounds: absence of an equivalent English offence in relation to the third allegation, oppression or injustice arising from the passage of time, and interference with his Article 8 rights. The central issues were whether the third allegation satisfied the requirement of an equivalent domestic offence and whether extradition would be disproportionate.

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The requirement of an equivalent offence was satisfied. The court was concerned with the particular conduct alleged in the warrant, rather than with a literal comparison between the Lithuanian offence and an English offence. Men acting together under the influence of alcohol, using taboo language which humiliated and insulted a police officer, would be likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and would therefore amount to an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

3. The Senior District Judge was entitled to reject the argument based on delay and oppression. Although the appellant had been in the United Kingdom for three years and was working as a butcher, he was not a fugitive. Those circumstances did not make extradition unjust or oppressive.

4. The Article 8 assessment was also lawful. The alleged offences were not among the most serious, but they could not properly be characterised as so trivial that extradition would be disproportionate merely because it disrupted the appellant’s private life. The conclusions reached below were correct for the reasons given.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Senior District Judge’s extradition order of 17 December 2012 was dismissed.