Palioniene v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania

In an extradition appeal engaging article 8 ECHR, the best interests of an affected child are a paramount consideration, but they do not automatically outweigh the public interest in extradition. The court must obtain sufficient information about the child’s likely circumstances and assess the realistic scenarios following extradition. The question is whether extradition is proportionate and compatible with article 8, not whether there is a real risk of a particular outcome. There is no requirement of exceptionality. Serious offending, previous convictions, fugitive status, treaty obligations and the public interest in preventing the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven may outweigh substantial harm caused by separation from a sole carer. A sufficiently specific assurance from the requesting state may support that conclusion.

The appellant appealed against a district judge’s order for her extradition to Lithuania on drug offences. The appeal raised article 8 ECHR issues because she was the sole carer of a young child. In an earlier judgment, the court required Lithuania to provide further information or assurances concerning pre-trial detention and the child’s care.

Lithuania subsequently assured the court that, if detention were imposed, it would last no longer than six months. The appellant sought to rely on further evidence from a clinical psychologist, social services and herself. The issues were whether that evidence should be admitted and whether extradition remained proportionate and compatible with article 8 in light of the assurance and the child’s best interests.

1. Fresh evidence. Evidence produced after the original extradition hearing was admitted for the purposes of determining the appeal. It concerned the child’s current circumstances, the likely harm from separation and the appellant’s position. Applying the approach in Hungary v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 321 (Admin), the evidence was unavailable at the earlier hearing. Since it did not alter the result, it was not formally admitted as evidence on which the appeal succeeded.
2. Applicable article 8 approach. Section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 required the court to determine whether extradition was proportionate and compatible with Convention rights. There was no test of exceptionality and no requirement to establish a real risk of a particular outcome. The court had to balance the public interest in extradition against the article 8 interference, treating the child’s best interests as a paramount consideration and obtaining the information necessary to assess them.
3. Assessment of the likely outcomes. The court considered three realistic possibilities: refusal of bail with up to six months’ separation; bail in Lithuania with the child; or a guilty plea followed by accommodation with the child. The suggestion of repeated separations was speculative. The court assessed the case on the scenario involving up to six months’ pre-trial separation, accepting that even a short separation would cause serious harm.
4. Proportionality. The assurance supported the district judge’s balancing exercise. Factors favouring extradition included the strong public interest, treaty obligations, fugitive status, the serious nature of supplying drugs including to a prison, and previous convictions. Factors against included the intense bond between the appellant and her child, the child’s innocence, the likely emotional harm and the age of the alleged offending. Taking the child’s best interests as a paramount consideration, extradition remained proportionate and compatible with article 8.
5. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed in substance. The extradition order stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): In an earlier judgment, [2019] EWHC 944 (Admin), the court required further information or assurances concerning the appellant’s pre-trial detention and her child’s care. In the present judgment, the court held that Lithuania’s assurance was sufficient and that extradition remained proportionate and compatible with article 8.