The High Court has ordered the surrender of Andrius Kondratov to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant so he can face prosecution for alleged assault and robbery-type offences.
In a judgment delivered on 1 April 2022, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs found that surrender was not barred by section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 or another provision of the Act. The order was made under section 16. The court did not determine whether Mr Kondratov committed the alleged offences.
Mr Kondratov argued that his partner had withdrawn her complaint and that the pre-trial investigation had not concluded, with no decision made to put him on trial. He said surrender was therefore prohibited under section 21A.
In additional information responding to questions from the High Court, the issuing judicial authority said a suspect interview and completion of the pre-trial investigation remained to be carried out after surrender. The prosecutor said the case would then be sent to court with an indictment, regardless of whether Mr Kondratov accepted responsibility, made no comment or denied the allegations. The prosecutor also said there was sufficient evidence for trial.
The information supplied to the court said the complainant had stated in an interview on 3 March 2021 that she had no claim that Mr Kondratov used physical violence against her, as she had not seen a doctor. The issuing authority said the relevant domestic-environment offence could be investigated without her statement and that proceedings would continue even if a complaint was withdrawn. It also reported that, in a supplementary interview on 15 September 2021, she described severe stress and harmful spiritual experiences arising from an alleged theft.
Justice Biggs applied the Supreme Court’s approach in *Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Olsson* [2011] IESC 1. She noted the statutory presumption that a decision had been made to charge and try a person, and said strong and cogent evidence was required to rebut it. She found there was no such evidence here, given the prosecutor’s confirmation that the case would proceed to trial after the required interview.
The court also found that the offences carried maximum penalties exceeding 12 months and that corresponding offences existed under Irish law. It was satisfied the person before it was the person named in the warrant; no identity issue had been raised.