Gramauskas v District Court of Alytus Region, Lithuania

Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires a European Arrest Warrant to state the time and place of the alleged offence only to the extent that those particulars can be stated by the prosecuting authority. Exact timing is not required where the nature of the alleged offence makes precise identification impossible. The warrant must nevertheless contain sufficient particulars to establish the charge under the law of the requesting state and to demonstrate that the conduct corresponds to an equivalent offence in England and Wales. A challenge to one charge therefore fails where the place is adequately identified and the absence of an exact time does not undermine those requirements.

The appellant faced extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant issued to enable him to stand trial for 33 alleged offences, including electronic theft or attempted theft and affray. His extradition was ordered on 19 February 2015. He initially challenged extradition on Article 3 and Article 2 grounds, but those grounds were abandoned.

The remaining appeal concerned one charge. That charge stated that the exact time and place had not been determined during the pre-trial investigation. The central issue was whether the warrant nevertheless complied with section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Appeal dismissed. The challenge to the sufficiency of one charge in the European Arrest Warrant was without foundation.
2. Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 does not require the warrant to state the exact time of an alleged offence where, having regard to the nature of the offence, that information cannot be established with precision.
3. The charge concerned the alleged unlawful acquisition of identification-tool data relating to another person’s electronic payment device, sufficient to initiate a financial transaction concerning a specified bank account. The warrant expressly stated that the exact time and place had not been determined.
4. The relevant statutory requirement is satisfied by particulars which the prosecuting authority can state and which are sufficient to establish the charge under the law of the requesting state and to demonstrate that the conduct would constitute an equivalent offence under the law of England and Wales. The court treated the absence of an exact time as consistent with the nature of obtaining tools for fraud, which may be impossible to date precisely.
5. The place was adequately established as Alytus. The surrounding charges also made clear that the alleged conduct occurred in Lithuania and that the appellant was in Alytus when the offences occurred. The statutory requirements were therefore met and extradition remained ordered.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• The appellant’s extradition had been ordered on 19 February 2015 after an uncontested hearing.