The Supreme Court allowed the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s appeal against an order requiring production of a Lithuanian domestic arrest warrant connected to a European Arrest Warrant seeking Valdemaras Altaravicius’s surrender for trial on a robbery charge. It remitted the matter to the High Court, as executing judicial authority, for final determination. The Supreme Court did not decide whether Altaravicius should be surrendered.
Altaravicius was arrested on 15 April 2005 under a European Arrest Warrant issued by a Lithuanian judicial authority on 30 December 2004 and endorsed for execution by the High Court on 8 April 2005. He was released on bail pending a hearing under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. His objection stated generally that the warrant was unlawful and void, without identifying a specific defect or supporting facts.
Before the High Court hearing, his solicitors sought a copy of a Lithuanian District Court arrest warrant dated 8 February 2002. They argued that it was needed to check for inconsistencies between that warrant and the European Arrest Warrant, and to assess whether the presumption that the issuing state would comply with the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision could be rebutted. The High Court ordered the copy provided, reasoning that a respondent who requested it was entitled to receive it.
Giving judgment on 5 April 2006, Chief Justice Murray said neither section 11 of the 2003 Act nor Article 8 of the Framework Decision required a copy of the domestic warrant to accompany the European Arrest Warrant. The information in the European warrant, including the underlying warrant’s date, issuing court, type and reference number, met those requirements.
The Supreme Court also held that section 4A’s presumption concerned the issuing state’s future compliance after surrender, not whether an already-issued warrant had been validly issued. The High Court decision in Minister for Justice v Fallon did not support a general right to the underlying warrant: that case involved evidence from an English lawyer raising a probable issue about the warrant’s validity. Here, the Supreme Court said, there was no evidence raising such an issue. The suggested inconsistency was speculative, and a mere assertion of a possible defect did not require an inquiry or disclosure.
The court said section 20 allowed the High Court to seek additional information in an individual case if the material before it was insufficient to perform its function; no such decision had been made here. It concluded that Altaravicius had received fair procedures, including a copy of the European Arrest Warrant and an opportunity to answer the case for surrender. The remitted High Court proceedings remained for final determination.