Grigelevicius v Prosecutor General's Office Republic of Lithuania

Under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must consider separately whether extradition is compatible with Convention rights and whether it is disproportionate. The public interest in honouring extradition arrangements and respecting a requesting state’s sentencing policy is very weighty. Extradition is not disproportionate merely because a comparable offence in the United Kingdom would probably attract no custodial sentence. A penalty may nevertheless be so offensive in the circumstances of the alleged conduct that it justifies refusal, but such cases are extremely rare. On appeal, the court reviews whether the decision was wrong, while respecting factual findings and intervening only for legal error, irrationality, irrelevant considerations, or failure to consider relevant matters.

A District Judge ordered the appellant’s extradition to Lithuania to face trial for allegedly supplying 0.38 grams of cannabis. The alleged conduct occurred in 2010, and the appellant later travelled to the United Kingdom in breach of a commitment to remain at his residence. The District Judge rejected a passage-of-time bar under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, found that the appellant’s Article 8 rights were engaged, and concluded that extradition was compatible with those rights and proportionate under section 21A.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the treatment of his family and private life, the weight given to his conduct in the United Kingdom, and the conclusion that Lithuania’s mandatory minimum sentence of two years’ imprisonment was not offensive to a domestic court. The central issues were whether the District Judge had made an error of law or had reached a decision that was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s order for extradition to Lithuania was upheld.
2. Section 21A raises two separate questions: compatibility with Convention rights and proportionality. Although the questions may substantially overlap, each must be addressed separately. The appellate court’s task under section 26 is review. It must focus on whether the decision was wrong, ordinarily respecting findings based on evidence heard by the District Judge.
3. The appellant’s Article 8 rights were engaged, but the interference was outweighed by the public interest in extradition. That public interest includes bringing accused persons to trial, honouring treaty obligations, and avoiding safe havens. The appellant’s fugitive status and the District Judge’s findings concerning his false details were relevant considerations.
4. For proportionality, the District Judge correctly considered the seriousness of the alleged conduct and the likely penalty. The conduct involved high culpability because of the travel undertaken to supply the drug, but low harm because the quantity was small and there was no commercial element. Respect was properly accorded to Lithuania’s assessment of drug supply and its sentencing regime.
5. It was insufficient that a comparable offence in the United Kingdom would probably result in no imprisonment. The exceptional category identified in Miraszewski v Poland concerned penalties offensive to a domestic court in the circumstances of the particular conduct. This case did not fall within that extremely rare category. Miglans v Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia was distinguishable because it concerned a substantially heavier minimum sentence for simple possession.
6. The failure expressly to mention the appellant’s time in custody did not undermine the overall conclusion, since it merely reinforced his principal argument. The District Judge’s conclusions were legally open and were not irrational or wrong.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed. The extradition to Lithuania was directed to proceed.