Vilkanauskas v Lithuanian Judicial Authority

Where a person is sought under an accusation European arrest warrant, the statutory presumption in favour of bail may be displaced by a substantial risk of failure to surrender. The court must assess the risk cumulatively, having regard to evidence of concealment or use of false identities, the practical difficulty of locating the applicant, and the seriousness of the offences and potential sentence. Bail conditions will be inadequate where they do not sufficiently address the risk of absconding. The effect of continued detention on family members, although material, does not outweigh an unacceptably high risk of non-surrender.

The applicant sought bail under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Lithuania sought his surrender under a European arrest warrant issued in 2017 and certified in 2021 for trial on four offences involving the alleged exploitation and control of persons recruited for work.

He had been arrested under the warrant in December 2021. His extradition hearing was listed for July 2022, and three earlier bail applications before Westminster Magistrates’ Court had failed. He relied on longstanding United Kingdom connections, family responsibilities, the delay in seeking extradition, and proposed residence, security and electronic-curfew conditions. The central issue was whether the presumption in favour of bail was displaced by the risk that he would fail to surrender.

1. Bail refused. The presumption in favour of bail applicable to a person sought under an accusation warrant was firmly displaced on the facts.
2. The risk of failure to surrender was assessed cumulatively. Relevant matters included evidence that the applicant had registered and insured a high-value vehicle in a false name, possessed two identification cards in a false name, and lived in a house registered to another person. The arresting officer’s evidence that locating him had been particularly difficult reinforced the risk.
3. The offences were serious and carried maximum sentences of 10 and 12 years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s evident fear of returning to Lithuania and possibly being imprisoned there further increased the risk of absconding.
4. The proposed conditions, including residence at an identified address, £5,000 security and an electronically monitored curfew, would not adequately address that risk.
5. The court recognised the material effect of continued detention on the applicant’s 14-year-old daughter, current partner and his partner’s eight-year-old daughter. Those consequences did not outweigh the risk, which was unacceptably high.

The application for bail was therefore refused.