Mindaugas Černiauskas v Vilnius Regional Court, Lithuania

A conviction warrant under Extradition Act 2003 must contain particulars sufficient to identify the convictions and sentence for which extradition is sought. A penalty that has been discharged or will not have to be served does not undermine the warrant merely because the underlying offence is insufficiently particularised. The court must assess the warrant as a whole and determine whether its wording creates a reasonable doubt about the offences contributing to the sentence sought.

The appellant challenged an order by District Judge Snow for his extradition to Lithuania under a conviction warrant. Permission to appeal was granted on a single ground concerning section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.

The conviction warrant concerned several Lithuanian decisions, offences and penalties, culminating in a suspended sentence of one year and nine months, of which approximately one year and seven months remained outstanding. The central issue was whether the warrant sufficiently particularised the convictions and sentence, particularly where it referred to an earlier unserved penalty and to a penalty from which the appellant had been exempted.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The warrant satisfied section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Under section 2(6)(b), a conviction warrant must provide particulars of the conviction. Applying Edutanu v Iasi Court of Law [2016] EWHC 124 (Admin), a warrant may be invalid where the sentence to be served includes offences that have not been particularised.
3. The community-service penalty referred to in one of the Lithuanian decisions was immaterial. The appellant had been exempted from it, and extradition was not sought to enforce that penalty. It therefore had no bearing on the outstanding sentence of one year and nine months.
4. The reference in B4 to a combined penalty did not create an evidential basis for suggesting that unspecified offences contributed to the sentence. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that the provision related to the specified offences.
5. The reference in B2 to the unserved penalty was properly understood as referring to the fine of eight minimum living standards. It did not create a reasonable doubt that an unparticularised offence formed part of the final sentence. The offence resulting in the 30-day arrest penalty was identified in the warrant by reference to Article 284(1) of the Criminal Code and was properly particularised in Box E.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was granted by Dexter Dias J on a section 2 ground. The appeal against District Judge Snow’s extradition order was dismissed.