Bucnys v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania

A ministry may issue a European arrest warrant for a convicted person as a judicial authority where it acts only at the request of, and endorses the decision of, the court responsible for the sentence or another competent judicial authority. A one-way discretion to refuse the warrant does not alter that conclusion.

A ministry acting on its own initiative or at the request of an executive agency cannot qualify. Designation under article 6 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and certification under section 2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, do not conclusively establish that the issuer is judicial.

These conjoined appeals concerned European arrest warrants issued by the Lithuanian and Estonian Ministries of Justice for three people required to serve criminal sentences. The Administrative Court, reported at [2013] 1 All ER 1220, upheld the Lithuanian warrants for Bucnys and Sakalis but invalidated the Estonian warrant for Lavrov.

Bucnys and Sakalis appealed, while the Estonian Ministry appealed in Lavrov's case. The central questions were whether the ministries were judicial authorities issuing judicial decisions, whether SOCA's certification was conclusive, and whether section 2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 required the issuer to possess a domestic arrest-warrant function.

1. Disposition. Lord Mance, with whom Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson agreed, dismissed Bucnys's appeal, allowed Sakalis's appeal and allowed the Estonian Ministry's appeal in Lavrov's case.

2. The expression “judicial authority” in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has autonomous content. A member state's designation under article 6(3) does not conclusively establish that the designated body is judicial. Likewise, a certificate under section 2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 certifies the issuer's warrant-issuing function. It assumes, but does not certify, that the issuer is judicial.

3. Outside the Schengen-alert context, section 2(7) refers to the function of issuing European arrest warrants, not domestic arrest warrants. Section 212 does not require a different construction because its modified wording operates in the distinct context of an alert requested by a domestic judicial authority.

4. A conviction warrant issued by a ministry may nevertheless be issued by a judicial authority. That is so where the ministry acts only at the request of, and endorses a decision made by, the court responsible for the sentence or another body properly regarded as a judicial authority responsible for its execution. A ministry's discretion to refuse the warrant does not invalidate the arrangement where it can operate only for the requested person's benefit. A ministry acting on its own motion or at the request of an executive agency, including a prison department, does not qualify.

5. Bucnys's warrant was valid because the responsible Lithuanian court had decided that the warrant was appropriate and sent its ruling and a draft warrant to the Ministry. Sakalis's warrant was invalid because the request originated with the executive Prison Department and no judicial decision to seek the warrant had been made. Lavrov's warrant was valid because the Viru County Court made the operative decision and the Estonian Ministry's lawful role was limited to checking formal conditions and issuing the warrant.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: By [2013] UKSC 71, dismissed Bucnys's appeal, allowed Sakalis's appeal and allowed the Estonian Ministry's appeal in Lavrov's case.
2. Administrative Court: By the decision identified as [2012] EWHC Admin 2771 and reported at [2013] 1 All ER 1220, held that the Lithuanian warrants were valid but the Estonian warrant was invalid.