The Court of Appeal has rejected Tomas Lisauskas’s challenge to his proposed surrender to Lithuania to stand trial for armed robbery.
The central issue was whether Lithuania’s Prosecutor General could lawfully issue a European arrest warrant even though, under Lithuanian constitutional law, prosecutors are not part of the judiciary and do not themselves administer justice in the same way as courts.
The High Court had ordered Lisauskas’s surrender in February 2017. It later certified the question as one of exceptional public importance, allowing an appeal on whether Irish courts could presume that a designated prosecutor was a valid issuing judicial authority and what test should apply.
Lisauskas relied on evidence from Lithuanian lawyer Simas Tokarcakas. He said prosecutors were institutionally separate from both the judiciary and executive and that the Lithuanian Constitution reserved the administration of justice exclusively to the courts. He argued that the Prosecutor General therefore could not qualify as a judicial authority for European arrest warrant purposes.
The Court of Appeal rejected that conclusion. Mr Justice Birmingham reviewed Irish, UK and EU case law and found a consistent approach: an issuing judicial authority need not be a judge or court. Public prosecutors may qualify where they participate in the administration of criminal justice and are sufficiently independent of the executive.
The court said there is a presumption that a public prosecutor designated by a member state is a valid issuing judicial authority, although that presumption can be displaced by cogent evidence.
In this case, the evidence did not rebut it. Instead, the material showed that Lithuania’s Prosecutor General had an independent constitutional position, organised and directed pre-trial investigations, brought accusations and exercised functions within the criminal justice system.
The court therefore upheld the High Court’s test and conclusion. Lisauskas’s appeal was dismissed, leaving the surrender order in place.