Buivis v Deputy Prosecutor General (Republic of Lithuania)

An application for permission to appeal should be adjourned where an amended ground raises a materially developed point supported by newly identified authorities and the respondent has not yet had a fair opportunity to answer it. An adjournment for written submissions does not involve any provisional assessment of the merits. All issues remain open until the court has heard argument.

The appellant sought permission to appeal in extradition proceedings under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003. An amended ground dated 16 October 2020 developed an argument concerning the likely penalty in an accusation European arrest warrant and cited a line of domestic authorities. The respondent wished to respond to that development. The central procedural issue was whether the application should be adjourned to permit a fair opportunity for written submissions.

1. The application for permission to appeal was adjourned with the other applications before the court.
2. The amended grounds had materially developed an argument concerning “likely penalty” under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003. The argument relied on domestic sentencing practice, domestic case law, and a further extradition decision.
3. Because the respondent had not yet had an opportunity to respond to the newly identified authorities and accepted that such an opportunity was appropriate, fairness required an adjournment. A timetable for written submissions was agreed, with a provisional hearing date of 27 October 2020 at 9 am, subject to listing arrangements.
4. The judge had heard no oral argument and had formed no provisional view on any issue. The viability of the developed point, and all other grounds, remained fully open for argument. The point identified was not necessarily the only potentially viable ground.

The judgment records no determination of the underlying appeal or extradition issue. The application for permission to appeal was adjourned for written submissions.