Aleksynas & Ors v Minister of Justice, Republic of Lithuania & Anor

An extradition court has a limited implied abuse-of-process jurisdiction. Bad faith by the requesting authorities is required; confusion, inadequate explanation or operational failures do not by themselves suffice. Assurances are assessed by their practical reliability in all the circumstances, including the giver’s authority, their scope, local compliance and available monitoring. Legal enforceability is not decisive. For Article 3, the appellant must show strong grounds for believing in a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Conditions must be assessed by institution and facility, not assumed homogeneous. Short police detention may engage Article 3, depending on its conditions, duration and impact. Historical evidence and generic concerns did not establish a current real risk where the identified facilities were compliant and wider conditions had improved.

Seven appeals were brought under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against orders made by the Senior District Judge on 9 August 2013 for extradition to Lithuania. Two appeals were allowed by concession and discharge orders were made. The remaining five concerned the reliability and scope of assurances given by Lithuania, the risk of Article 3 ill-treatment in police detention, remand prisons and convicted prisons, and the proportionality of extradition in two conviction cases under Article 8. The central questions were whether the assurances amounted to an abuse of process or could safely be relied upon, whether return created a real risk of Article 3 violations, and whether extradition was disproportionate.

Disposition. The appeals of Mr Podrezas and Mr Gudauskas had already been allowed, with discharge orders made under section 27(5)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003. The five remaining appeals were dismissed.

1. The court accepted that it possessed a limited implied abuse-of-process jurisdiction. The jurisdiction was directed principally to bad faith by the requesting authorities, such as seeking extradition without a real case or for a collateral oppressive purpose. The evidence showed muddle, insufficient explanation and failures of planning, but not bad faith. The assurances therefore did not constitute an abuse of process.
2. The assurances were assessed by asking whether, in all the circumstances, they were in fact effective to refute the asserted Convention-rights violations. Legal enforceability in Lithuania was not treated as decisive. The court considered the factors identified in Othman v UK [2012] 55 EHRR 1, including the assurances’ provenance, scope, practical implementation, monitoring and the requesting state’s response to earlier difficulties. Subsequent corrective measures by the Lithuanian authorities supported their reliability.
3. The Article 3 test required strong grounds for believing that return would expose an appellant to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The burden rested on the appellants and was a relatively high one. The court remained bound by the domestic approach in R(Wellington) v SSHD [2009] 2 WLR 48, despite the contrary reasoning in Harkin & Edwards v UK [2012] 55 EHRR 19.
4. Conditions could not be treated as homogeneous throughout Lithuania. Police detention units, remand prisons and prisons for convicted persons required separate assessment, and short police detention could itself violate Article 3 depending on the conditions, duration and subjective impact. Conditions at Lukiskes Remand Prison were non-compliant, but the assurances excluded it and Šiauliai from the relevant cases. Kaunas Remand Prison was compliant. The evidence did not establish a real risk in the convicted-prison estate or generically across Lithuanian police facilities, and the identified Kaunas and Alytus cases did not cross the Article 3 threshold.
5. Delay, youth, family ties, residence in the United Kingdom, a clean record, electronic monitoring and the time remaining on a sentence did not outweigh the public interest in extradition. Extradition was not disproportionate in the cases of Mr Aleksynas or Mr Danielius.

Lord Justice Moses agreed with the judgment of Mr Justice Jay.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — appeals under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 determined by the Divisional Court on 24 February 2014. The court dismissed the five remaining appeals.
2. Senior District Judge — orders made on 9 August 2013 directing extradition to Lithuania. Two orders were subsequently discharged by concession; the remaining five were challenged before the High Court.