The Supreme Court has allowed the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s appeal against a High Court order requiring production of a Lithuanian arrest warrant before a surrender hearing. It held that a person sought under a European Arrest Warrant is not entitled to the underlying domestic warrant simply on request.
The appeal concerned Valdemaras Altaravicius, who was arrested in Ireland in April 2005 under a European Arrest Warrant received from Lithuania. He was released on bail pending a High Court hearing under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. His solicitors sought a copy of the Lithuanian court order on which the European warrant was based. The High Court later ordered that the domestic warrant be produced to the court and furnished to him before the surrender application was heard.
The Minister argued on appeal that neither the Act nor the EU Framework Decision required production of the domestic warrant in every case. The respondent maintained that access was needed to assess whether the statutory presumption of compliance with the Framework Decision could be rebutted.
Giving judgment on 5 April 2006, Denham J said the statutory scheme centred on the European Arrest Warrant and presumed that the issuing state would comply with the Framework Decision unless the contrary was shown. A respondent may seek to rebut that presumption, but must present legal reasons or evidence; a simple request for the domestic warrant is not enough to require its production.
The ruling does not prevent a respondent from opposing surrender or the High Court from seeking further material. Under section 20 of the Act, the High Court may require additional documentation or information if what it has received is insufficient to perform its functions. The court also retains powers to protect constitutional rights and fair procedures. Denham J said further material could be required where facts or law concerning a particular warrant call for it.
The Supreme Court said no section 20 application had yet been sought or decided in this case, and that the respondent could still make one at the section 16 hearing. It also said a possible issue over whether the warrant was issued by a judicial authority was best considered first by the High Court. The appeal did not decide that issue or the surrender application itself. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed only whether the domestic warrant had to be supplied on request.