Antana Sinkevicius v Regional Court in Kaunas & Anor

On an extradition appeal, the High Court must review whether the decision below was wrong, rather than substitute its own view merely because it might have weighed factors differently. Under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, proportionality requires an overall assessment of the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty and the availability of less coercive measures. Domestic sentencing guidelines may provide a reasonable indication of likely sentence where evidence from the requesting state is unavailable, but precise calibration is inappropriate. The public interest in returning fugitives to face justice is constant and weighty. Article 8 will prevent extradition only where the interference with family or private life is exceptionally severe. The appeal was dismissed because the offences were sufficiently serious, a custodial sentence of at least six months was likely, and the family consequences did not outweigh the public interest.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Tempia at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 5 September 2024, and delivered on 12 September 2024, ordering his extradition to Lithuania. Permission to appeal was granted on proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 and on article 8 of the Convention. A conviction warrant relating to an already-served sentence was withdrawn and discharged. The appeal therefore concerned an accusation warrant alleging attempted fraud and fraud involving multiple victims.

The central issues were whether extradition was disproportionate, having regard to the likely sentence and the appellant’s time on remand, and whether removal would constitute a disproportionate interference with his private and family life.

1. Appeal test. The appellate question was whether the district judge made the wrong decision. Applying Celinski and Belbin, the High Court should not interfere merely because it might have attached different weight to individual factors. Intervention is justified where the legal principles were misapplied, a material factual finding was unreasonable, a relevant factor was omitted or an irrelevant factor considered, or the conclusion was irrational or perverse. The court also applied the evaluative guidance in Re (B) and the power to stand back identified in Love.
2. Section 21A proportionality. The statutory factors were the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty and the possibility of less coercive measures. The correct domestic fraud guideline category was 5B. Although each offence fell within a range extending from a fine to 26 weeks’ custody, the two offences had to be assessed cumulatively and with regard to totality. Group offending, multiple victims, repeated offending while imprisoned, use of a mobile telephone in prison and the appellant’s serious antecedents were substantial aggravating features. A custodial sentence of at least six months was likely, with a real possibility of a longer sentence. The court rejected reliance on the age of the offences because delay was principally attributable to the appellant’s fugitivity.
3. The court applied the significant margin recognised in Vascenkovs. The appellant had not identified an appropriate less coercive measure, and no sufficiently reliable evidence established the exceptional early-release circumstances described in Andrysiewicz.
4. Article 8. The public interest in extradition was constant and weighty. The appellant was a fugitive, and his family relationships had been developed with knowledge that he might be returned. His partner and her children would experience hardship, but the evidence did not establish an exceptionally severe impact. The children’s interests were a primary consideration, not a paramount or determinative one. Extradition remained compatible with article 8.
5. The appeal concerning AW2 was dismissed. The appellant’s surrender to Lithuania was ordered under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The conviction warrant, AW1, had already been withdrawn and discharged.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Tempia ordered extradition at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 5 September 2024, with judgment delivered on 12 September 2024. Permission to appeal was granted by Morris J on 11 February 2025 on proportionality and article 8 grounds.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal dismissed. Extradition under AW2 was held proportionate and compatible with Convention rights. AW1 was discharged after withdrawal of the conviction warrant.