Grazulis v Circuit Court in Klaipeda, Lithuania

On an extradition appeal, a new abuse-of-process argument may be raised where the point could materially affect whether extradition should proceed. The English court should generally leave questions concerning the operation of a foreign limitation provision to the foreign courts. It should intervene only in the limited circumstances identified in the authorities. Article 8 requires a balancing exercise between the individual and family impact of extradition and the public interest in giving effect to extradition obligations. Where the district judge has properly considered the competing factors, the High Court will not interfere merely because the offence is old, non-violent, or causes substantial hardship.

The appellant challenged a decision of District Judge Coleman at Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his extradition to Lithuania on a conviction European Arrest Warrant. Extradition was sought so that he could serve a sentence of one year, eight months and 16 days for blackmail.

He argued that extradition would be an abuse of process because the Lithuanian limitation period had expired or was about to expire. He also argued that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his and his family’s rights under Article 8. The central issues were whether the limitation argument should be determined by the English court and whether the district judge had properly carried out the Article 8 balancing exercise.

1. Appeal dismissed. There was no basis for interfering with the district judge’s decision to order extradition.
2. The appellant was permitted to raise the abuse-of-process point for the first time on appeal, although it could have been raised below. The court accepted that the relevant Lithuanian provision might refer to arrest in Lithuania rather than arrest under a European Arrest Warrant, but declined to determine that question.
3. Following Filipek v Provincial Court In Lublin Poland [2011] EWHC 506 (Admin), and the approach in Battistini v Italy [2009] EWHC 3536 (Admin), the operation of a foreign limitation provision was ordinarily a matter for the foreign courts. The English court should not rule on the merits of such a limitation argument except in the limited circumstances identified in the authorities. The same approach was reinforced by Mohammed v The Court of Appeal, Paris [2013] EWHC 1768 (Admin) and Bendik v Judicial Authority of Slovakia [2010] EWHC 1821 (Admin).
4. In the Article 8 assessment, the court considered the alleged unenforceability of the judgment, the nature and age of the offences, the appellant’s circumstances and the impact on his wife and children. The offences were not trivial and would likely attract immediate custody in England. The appellant had been present at the Lithuanian proceedings and was a fugitive from justice. Although surrender would cause hardship, no compelling feature outweighed the public interest in fulfilling the United Kingdom’s extradition obligations.
5. The appeal was dismissed. Costs were to be assessed in the usual way.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Coleman ordered extradition to Lithuania on 1 December 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that decision was dismissed.