Pakstys v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania

For the purposes of section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, an issuing warrant may establish that decisions to charge and try have been made even though the requested person remains at the pre-trial investigation stage. Those decisions need not be final, irrevocable or expressed in a particular form. The court should focus on whether a decision to try has been made, rather than on the procedural steps still required before indictment or trial. Further information should not be used to contradict the plain meaning of an unambiguous warrant. Extradition may remain proportionate where the alleged offence is serious, a substantial custodial sentence is likely, and the requested person has evaded the requesting state. Allegations concerning the reliability or admissibility of evidence are ordinarily for the requesting state’s trial court, not the extradition court.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against the Senior District Judge’s order for his extradition to Lithuania to face prosecution for possessing a large quantity of cannabis with intent to supply. The warrant stated that his arrest and surrender were requested for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution.

Before the Senior District Judge, further information indicated that the Lithuanian case remained at the pre-trial investigation stage and that corrupt police officers might have added some cannabis to the seized package. The appeal challenged the decision on the alleged absence of prosecution decisions under section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, proportionality, and abuse of process. The central issues were whether the Lithuanian authorities had decided to charge and try the appellant, whether extradition was proportionate, and whether concerns about police corruption justified refusing extradition.

1. Section 12A. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant plainly requested arrest and surrender for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution, and its details and reference to the relevant Lithuanian offence supported the conclusion that decisions to charge and try had been made. The Senior District Judge should have stopped there. Further information should not have been used to reach the opposite conclusion where the warrant was unambiguous.
2. Following Puceviciene v Lithuanian Judicial Authority [2016] EWHC 1862 (Admin), a decision to charge or try need not be final, irrevocable or subject to any particular formality. The statutory focus is especially on the decision to try. The procedural steps preceding indictment and trial do not establish that no such decision has been made.
3. Proportionality. The alleged possession of more than 500 grams of cannabis with intent to supply was serious. A significant custodial sentence was likely. The appellant’s time in custody and the domestic early-release regime did not reduce the seriousness of the offence or make extradition disproportionate. Although mutual legal assistance might have been available, it was not unreasonable for Lithuania to seek extradition where the appellant had left Lithuania, used a false name and was found to have evaded the authorities.
4. Abuse of process. Allegations that corrupt police officers had contributed to the evidence did not undermine the statutory extradition scheme or the integrity of the European arrest warrant system. The Lithuanian courts were responsible for deciding the admissibility, reliability and weight of evidence, and the consequences of any improper investigation. The English courts should not supervise the requesting state’s trial process.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Senior District Judge’s extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The then Senior District Judge ordered the appellant’s extradition on 18 April 2016.