Aleksynas & Ors v Minister of Justice, Republic of Lithuania & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MOSES
- MR JUSTICE JAY
Areas of Law
- Extradition Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Seven appeals were made against extradition orders to Lithuania under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003. These appeals involved issues of potential violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, particularly focusing on the conditions of Lithuanian detention facilities and the reliability of assurances given by Lithuanian authorities. The court found the assurances reliable and dismissed the appeals, concluding that extradition would not breach the appellants' ECHR rights. Two appeals were allowed due to specific issues with the European Arrest Warrant and short remaining sentences.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE JAY:
Introduction
These are seven appeals brought under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“ the 2003 Act ”) against the orders of the Senior District Judge given on 9 th August 2013 that the Appellants be extradited to the Republic of Lithuania. The Ministry of Justice, Republic of Lithuania, is the Respondent to the appeals of Mr Arunas Aleksynas, Mr Rimas Danielius, Mr Edgaras Gudauskas and Mr Stasys Podrezas, whose extraditions are being sought for the purposes of executing custodial sentences (“the conviction cases”). The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania is the Respondent to the appeals of Mr Aurimas Petronis, Mr Gintaras Lapinskas and Mr Petras Zideckas whose extraditions are being sought for the purposes of prosecution (“the accusation cases”).
The First Respondent accepts that the appeals of Mr Podrezas and Mr Gudauskas should be allowed: the former on the basis that the European Arrest Warrant was not issued by a judicial authority (see Bucnys v Ministry of Justice, Republic of Lithuania and others [2013] 3 WLR 1485 ); the latter on the basis that he has only one day of his sentence left to serve. Pursuant to our direction at the start of the hearing, orders for their discharge have therefore been made under section 27(5)(a) of the 2003 Act .
Lithuania became an independent Republic on 11 th March 1990 following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It joined the Council of Europe on 14 th May 1993 and acceded to the European Union in 2004. In such circumstances Lithuania has been designated a Category 1 territory pursuant to section 1 of the 2003 Act , and Part 1 accordingly applies.
Notwithstanding paragraph 11 of the Respondents’ Skeleton Argument, it now appears that no issue arises in this appeal whether evidence which post-dated the Senior District Judge’s decision was ‘not available at the extradition hearing’ for the purposes of section 27(4)(a). Evidence bearing on the Appellants’ abuse of process argument came to light after 9 th August 2013, and Mr Alun Jones QC for the Respondents indicated that he would not take a point under section 27(4)(b) in relation to evidence of admittedly limited significance bearing on the Article 3 issue.
The issues arising in the five remaining appeals are as follows:
whether assurances given by the Vice-Minister of Justice amount to an abuse of the process of the Court such that they cannot be relied on (this issue relates only to the accusation