The High Court ordered the surrender of Romualdas Stuina to Lithuania under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his argument that no decision had been made there to prosecute him for alleged rape and attempted rape.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered judgment on 20 June 2007. The warrant, issued in Lithuania on 14 September 2005, was received in Ireland in March 2007 and endorsed for execution by the High Court on 20 March. Stuina was arrested on 25 April and remanded in custody pending the surrender application.
The court was satisfied that Stuina was the person named in the warrant. It also found that the offences described fell within the warrant’s selected categories of “sexual exploitation of children” and “rape”, and that the statutory minimum gravity requirement was met. The judgment recorded no basis to refuse surrender under sections 22, 23 or 24 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, and no prohibition under Part III of the Act or the relevant Framework Decision.
The dispute concerned section 21A of the Act. It provides that, for a person not convicted of the specified offence, surrender must be refused if the court is satisfied no decision has been made to charge and try that person in the issuing state. The section also presumes such a decision has been made unless the contrary is proved.
For Stuina, counsel argued that wording in the warrant suggested the Lithuanian authorities were still investigating. It said he had gone into hiding from the “pre-trial investigation” on 10 August 2005 and had then been declared wanted. Counsel also pointed to the alleged offence date of 30 April 2005 and a domestic arrest warrant issued on 16 August 2005, arguing that the short interval supported the view that prosecution had not yet been decided.
The applicant’s counsel submitted that this amounted to speculation and that the presumption had not been rebutted. No affidavit or expert evidence on Lithuanian law had been provided by the respondent.
The judge held that the warrant’s wording did not provide sufficiently clear evidence to displace the presumption, particularly without expert evidence explaining the point at which prosecution begins under Lithuanian law. He said evidence capable of rebutting it would need to remove uncertainty. The court also relied on the mutual trust between EU member states reflected in the Framework Decision.
Finding that the presumption remained unrebutted, the High Court made the surrender order under section 16. The judgment records that the order was made; it does not establish whether or when the surrender was carried out.