Antonov & Anor v Prosecutor Generals Office Lithuania

Under section 13(a) of the Extradition Act 2003, the requested person must establish a causal link between the issue of the European arrest warrant and the alleged extraneous consideration. Under section 13(b), the court must assess whether there is a serious possibility that the requested person will suffer the specified prejudice, and whether it will occur by reason of nationality or another listed consideration. General concerns about judicial independence or corruption fall outside section 13(b) unless they produce that specified prejudice for that reason. Specific assurances from a category 1 territory should be assessed in light of the evidence, the nature and duration of any risk, and the individual circumstances.

Two appeals were brought against District Judge Zani’s orders of 20 January 2014 directing the extradition of Vladimir Antonov and Raimondas Baranauskas to Lithuania for prosecution on four alleged offences concerning Snoras Bank. The appellants challenged the orders under sections 13(a), 13(b) and 21 of the Extradition Act 2003. They also alleged procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons and errors in the assessment of evidence. The principal issues were whether the warrants had been issued for an extraneous purpose, whether the appellants might suffer the specified prejudice at trial, whether extradition would breach Convention rights because of detention conditions, and whether the District Judge’s reasoning and procedural decisions were legally sufficient.

The appeals were dismissed.

1. Section 13(a) addresses the issuing authority’s state of mind when the warrant was issued. The requested person bears the burden, on the balance of probabilities, of establishing a causal link between the warrant and prosecution or punishment on account of nationality or political opinions. The alleged political motives for nationalising Snoras did not establish that link.
2. Section 13(b) is prospective. The requested person must show a serious possibility both that the specified prejudice will occur and that it will occur by reason of one of the listed extraneous considerations. General concerns about judicial independence, corruption or political influence do not fall within the subsection unless they cause prejudice by reason of nationality or political opinions. Other fair-trial concerns are addressed under sections 21 and 21A(1)(a).
3. The court accepted the assurances that the appellants would be held in Kaunas remand prison. Past breaches were sparse and did not establish a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. Any detention in police cells had to be assessed by reference to the nature and duration of the conditions and the individual circumstances.
4. A District Judge determining a contested extradition must give reasons on each question before the court. Where credibility or conflicting expert evidence matters, brief reasons explaining the preference are sufficient. The High Court may hear an appeal on fact or law under section 26(3), but section 27(3) requires a different answer that would have led to discharge.
5. The District Judge was entitled to refuse disclosure of confidential foreign case materials concerning a peripheral issue. The court also stressed the need for rigorous case management, relevant evidence and no duplication of experts.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — [2015] EWHC 1243 (Admin): appeals from the District Judge’s extradition orders dismissed.
• District Judge — orders made on 20 January 2014 directing extradition to Lithuania.