Mantas Barkauskas v Prosecutors General of the Republic of Lithuania

Particulars in an extradition warrant must clearly identify the alleged conduct, offence, time and place so that the requested person can understand the case, raise bars to extradition and rely on specialty protection. Related offences may be described together where the warrant clearly distinguishes the conduct and statutory offences.

For alleged inter-prisoner violence, Article 3 requires a real risk of sufficiently serious harm and, additionally, a failure by the requesting state to provide reasonable protection. Continuing remedial measures may prevent the presumption of compliance from being rebutted where there is no clear and compelling evidence of structural or systemic failure.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Tempia. Permission to appeal was granted on whether the accusation warrant contained adequate particulars under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, and on an issue concerning extradition offences and dual criminality under section 10. An Article 3 ground concerning inter-prisoner violence in Lithuanian prisons was later revived by an amendment application following a new CPT report.

The court deferred argument on a possible stay pending proceedings in El-Khouri v USA, but determined the particulars issue and the reasonable arguability of the Article 3 ground. The central questions were whether the warrant sufficiently particularised the alleged conduct and whether the new material arguably rebutted Lithuania’s presumed compliance with its Article 3 duty to provide reasonable protection.

1. Particulars. Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires particulars sufficient to identify the alleged offence and the nature and extent of the allegations. They must enable the requested person to understand the case, raise bars to extradition and obtain the protection of specialty. The conduct alleged must be clear and unambiguous; a broad omnibus description is insufficient.
2. The warrant adequately particularised three offences. The allegations were delineated by named victims, dates, places, roles and the applicable Lithuanian offences. The fact that the conduct supporting two offences was set out in a combined section did not create uncertainty because the warrant distinguished trafficking in human beings from organising or controlling prostitution by reference to the relevant statutory provisions. The section 2(4)(c) ground therefore failed.
3. Article 3. Applying Urbonas v Lithuania [2024] EWHC 33 (Admin), extradition requires consideration of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person faces a real risk of Article 3-level harm. Where the risk arises from state agents, that may conclude the inquiry. Where it arises from other prisoners, the additional question is whether the requesting state has failed to provide reasonable protection.
4. At the permission stage, reasonable arguability is a modest threshold and permission should be refused only where there is a clean knock-out blow. The updated CPT report and Lithuanian Government response nevertheless showed continued acceptance of the problem and renewed measures concerning prison infrastructure, staffing, drugs, prisoner hierarchy and protective arrangements. They did not provide clear and compelling evidence of structural or systemic failure sufficient to rebut the presumption that Lithuania would provide reasonable protection.
5. The Article 3 ground had no realistic prospect of success at a substantive hearing. Permission to amend was refused. The section 10 ground was adjourned pending argument on the proposed stay; this was a deferral of argument, not a stay.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Tempia ordered extradition in a judgment dated 11 August 2023. Permission to appeal was refused on most grounds by Saini J on 24 November 2023, but later granted on two grounds by Julian Knowles J on 11 June 2024. Fordham J rejected the particulars ground, refused permission to amend on the Article 3 ground and adjourned the section 10 ground.