The Court of Appeal has dismissed Liam Campbell’s appeal against an order for his surrender to Lithuania, finding that the evidence did not rebut the presumption that a decision had been made to charge and try him there.
The appeal was confined to one issue under section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Campbell argued that Lithuania sought him for an investigation and had not yet decided to put him on trial. The High Court had rejected that objection and ordered his surrender to face trial on three alleged offences. The Court of Appeal’s ruling addressed the section 21A issue raised in the appeal.
The Lithuanian warrant concerns allegations that Campbell helped arrange the acquisition and transport of firearms and explosives from Lithuania to Ireland while acting with the Real Irish Republican Army. The alleged offences are preparation for a crime, terrorism and illegal possession of firearms. They remain allegations; the appeal was not a trial of those charges.
Campbell relied on evidence from Lithuanian lawyer Ingrida Botyrienė about Lithuania’s pre-trial investigation process. She said an indictment would be presented if the investigation gathered sufficient information, and expressed the view that further investigation would be needed in Campbell’s case. The court also considered a response from Lithuanian authorities stating that the investigation remained ongoing, that evidence was sufficient to suspect Campbell, and that there was a high probability an indictment would be drawn up and the case referred to court if he were surrendered.
Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Edwards said the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Olsson and Bailey could be reconciled. He rejected Campbell’s argument that Olsson had wrongly interpreted section 21A by reading it in the context of the European Arrest Warrant scheme. The court held that the section’s reference to a “decision” must be understood in its legislative context and as a matter of substance rather than form.
The court said a decision need not be final or irrevocable. It found that the Lithuanian authorities’ stated intention to prosecute, the evidence supporting suspicion, and the high probability of an indictment showed an existing intention to charge and try Campbell. Further procedural steps could lead the authorities to reconsider, but that possibility did not establish that no decision had been made. The court also noted that the warrant expressly sought surrender for a criminal prosecution.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Justices Kennedy and Binchy agreed. The dismissal left the High Court surrender order in place; the Court of Appeal did not itself determine Campbell’s guilt.