Rauktys, R (on the application of) v Minister of Justice, Republic of Lithuania

[2014] EWHC 4232 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2014] EWHC 4232 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
21 November 2014
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Human rights Extradition
Keywords
extradition Article 8 family life conviction warrant absence of substantive grounds appeal dismissed
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An appeal challenging extradition on Article 8 family-life grounds requires identifiable substantive grounds and an argument explaining why implementation would be unlawful. Where no substantive grounds emerge, the appellant’s representatives cannot advance any supporting submission, and the respondent’s position is unanswered, the Administrative Court may determine the appeal on the available materials and dismiss it.

Factual background

The appellant appealed against District Judge Devas’s decision of 15 September 2014 at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court concerning a conviction warrant issued by Lithuania. The issue below was whether extradition would be unlawful because it interfered with the appellant’s family life under Article 8.

The appellant’s advocates sought permission to come off the record and confirmed that they could advance no argument supporting the Article 8 contention. The court therefore considered the appeal on the materials available, including the respondent’s skeleton argument, to which there was no reply.

Held

  1. The court granted the appellant’s advocates’ application to come off the record. They had advised the appellant and the court that no submissions could be advanced in support of the appeal, and the Article 8 contention was barely stated.
  2. No substantive grounds of appeal had emerged after the notice of appeal was issued. The court therefore examined the appeal on the materials before it, including the respondent’s skeleton argument, which had been served on the appellant and remained unanswered.
  3. On that basis, the court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, essentially for the reasons contained in the respondent’s skeleton argument. The judgment did not develop a separate analysis of the Article 8 merits.
  4. Order: the appeal was dismissed.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal from District Judge Devas’s decision of 15 September 2014 at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.