The High Court has refused to certify an appeal in a Lithuanian surrender case, finding that the respondent’s proposed questions about dishonesty and a claimed right to take property did not raise a point of law of exceptional public importance.
The application followed an earlier High Court judgment ordering the surrender of Zanas Dziugas (Number 2) to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant. In that decision, delivered on 2 February 2018, the court found correspondence between the Lithuanian offence described as “high-handedness” and theft under Irish law, based on the facts established against him.
The respondent sought a certificate under section 16(11) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. He asked whether someone who knows an act is unfair and criminal could still have a claim of right made in good faith, and whether a belief in taking property as a set-off could nevertheless amount to theft in Ireland, even if the conduct fell short of theft in the requesting state.
The court said its task was limited to deciding whether the case raised a point of law of exceptional public importance that it was desirable in the public interest to resolve on appeal. It could not reconsider its earlier judgment or assess the strength of the proposed appeal.
Justice Donnelly said the second question did not arise from the case facts. The European Arrest Warrant and additional information contained no evidence that Dziugas believed he was entitled to take the television as a set-off for his mobile phone. The court also said correspondence is assessed by asking whether the alleged or proven acts, including the accused’s intention, would constitute an offence in Ireland—not by comparing statutory labels or asking whether the conduct amounted to theft in Lithuania.
On the first question, the court said the issuing judicial authority had stated that Dziugas acted unfairly, without believing his conduct was fair, and understood he was behaving criminally. The judge concluded the proposed question did not reflect how the facts had been presented. The court found no basis in the submissions or authorities cited for a real doubt about whether someone found to have wilfully participated in a wrongful act could have acted honestly under Irish theft law.
The High Court refused to certify leave to appeal. The ruling concerned the appeal certificate application; the prior surrender order remained the earlier decision described in the judgment.