The High Court has ordered the surrender of Arunas Zukauskas to Lithuania, where he is sought for prosecution over an alleged assault. Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled that the facts set out in the European arrest warrant corresponded to offences under Irish law.
The warrant alleged that on 12 August 2006, in Pagerve village in Lithuania, Mr Zukauskas punched a man at least twice in the face and once on the head. It said the man suffered facial bruising and a broken jaw. The alleged offence carries a maximum possible sentence of three years in Lithuania.
The warrant was endorsed for execution by the High Court in January 2009. Mr Zukauskas was arrested in March 2009 and brought before the court. Justice Peart said he was satisfied that the arrested man was the person named in the warrant. He also said there was no reason apparent in the application to refuse surrender under the other statutory provisions raised in his judgment.
The dispute concerned whether the alleged conduct, as described in the warrant, amounted to an offence in Ireland. The Minister for Justice argued that it could correspond to assault or assault causing harm under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. For the respondent, counsel argued that the warrant did not say the victim had been punched without consent, an element he said was necessary for correspondence, and that the court should not fill that gap by inference.
Justice Peart distinguished the two Irish offences. He said assault under section 2 requires that force be applied without consent and without lawful excuse. But he relied on his earlier reasoning in another surrender case, which he said the Supreme Court had affirmed, that assault causing harm under section 3 is a separate offence and does not require proof that the victim did not consent.
The judge said a European arrest warrant should be read using a common-sense approach rather than parsed as if it were an indictment. In his view, the description of intentional punches causing bruising and a broken jaw showed conduct that would constitute assault and assault causing harm if committed in Ireland. The absence of an express statement about consent did not prevent a finding of correspondence; consent, lawful excuse and any defence could be addressed at trial.
The court’s decision concerned surrender for prosecution. It did not determine whether the alleged assault occurred or whether Mr Zukauskas was guilty. Justice Peart ordered surrender.