Judgment: 2022-11-07 · Court archive

High Court orders surrender to Lithuania under two European arrest warrants

The court rejected objections to surrender, finding that updated particulars clarified the first warrant and that the second extended the same prosecution.

High Court · [2022] IEHC 676

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Imre Arakas (Respondent)
  • Paul Burns (Judge)
  • [D.B.]
What

The court rejected objections to surrender, finding that updated particulars clarified the first warrant and that the second extended the same prosecution.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Kaunas
  • Lithuania
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Arakas argued that the changed account meant the warrant no longer related to the same offence and that the information provided was inadequate. The court rejected both objections. It found that the statutory presumption that a decision had been made to charge and try him had not been rebutted, and was satisfied that such a decision had been made. It also held that the additional information was permissible clarification of his alleged involvement and that the differences would cause no injustice in contesting surrender or addressing the case in Lithuania.

The High Court has ordered Imre Arakas’s surrender to Lithuania under two European arrest warrants seeking his prosecution. Mr Justice Paul Burns dismissed objections to both warrants in a judgment delivered on 7 November 2022.

The first warrant, issued in January 2018, seeks surrender in connection with three alleged offences: murder, unlawful possession of firearms and criminal damage. The murder allegation concerns the 2015 killing of [D.B.] in Kaunas. The warrant initially described Arakas as being among those who carried out the shooting.

Additional information from Lithuanian authorities later described his alleged role as organisational and preparatory. It said he was not present when the victim was shot, and alleged that he helped arrange the killing, including by involving others and assisting with preparations. These are allegations in the Lithuanian investigation; the Irish court did not determine his guilt.

Arakas argued that the changed account meant the warrant no longer related to the same offence and that the information provided was inadequate. The court rejected both objections. It found that the statutory presumption that a decision had been made to charge and try him had not been rebutted, and was satisfied that such a decision had been made. It also held that the additional information was permissible clarification of his alleged involvement and that the differences would cause no injustice in contesting surrender or addressing the case in Lithuania.

The court was satisfied that surrender was not barred by the relevant provisions of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. It therefore ordered surrender under the first warrant.

The second warrant, issued in June 2021, seeks prosecution for two offences, including murder and unlawful possession of firearms. It was described as an additional request expanding the prosecution in the same pre-trial investigation as the first warrant. The court accepted that explanation and rejected the objection based on the same domestic warrant being cited in both. Arakas’s counsel said the second warrant’s status depended on the first; after upholding the first warrant, the court dismissed the remaining objections and ordered surrender under the second as well.

The judgment also records that three other people were convicted in Lithuania in 2021 in connection with the murder. Those convictions were not findings about Arakas, whose case remained at the prosecution stage addressed by the warrants.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review