Valukonis v Minister of Justice, Republic of Lithuania

An extradition appeal based on Article 8 must disclose properly arguable grounds showing that extradition would be disproportionate. Where competent publicly funded representation has carefully considered that issue and identified no arguable case, the court may dismiss the appeal without requiring the appellant’s production from custody, an interpreter, or a further oral hearing.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Goldspring’s decision of 2 September 2014 ordering extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned enforcement of the remaining part of a four-year sentence imposed after the cancellation of conditional release.

The appeal relied on Article 8 of the Convention and alleged disproportionality. The central issue was whether any properly arguable ground existed for contending that extradition would be disproportionate.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was a serious offender who had been sentenced for multiple offences, including robbery, attempted robbery, drug offences, burglary, affray and criminal damage. He was required to serve approximately one year and four months of the sentence.
2. The governing approach was that identified by the Supreme Court in HH. Counsel, experienced in immigration matters and acting under legal aid, had carefully considered whether the effect of extradition on the appellant’s Article 8 rights could provide an arguable basis for finding extradition disproportionate. No such ground could be identified.
3. Where competent representation at public expense has fully considered the potential grounds of appeal and no properly arguable case exists, it is unnecessary, and wrong, to incur further public expense in producing the appellant from custody, arranging an interpreter and holding a hearing merely to enable the appellant to appear in person.
4. The appellant’s representative was paid for the hearing, and the usual order was made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed.
• District Judge Goldspring: on 2 September 2014, ordered extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant.