The High Court ordered the surrender of a man to Lithuania under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his argument that surrender would be an abuse of process because the complainant had withdrawn his complaint and would not give evidence.
The warrant sought the man’s surrender for prosecution over an alleged extortion offence. The judgment said the alleged circumstances would amount in Ireland to demanding money with menaces, but that the warrant classified the offence as extortion, so double criminality did not have to be established.
The respondent did not dispute his identity or the manner of his arrest. His barrister pursued one objection: that the complainant’s withdrawal meant there was no prospect of conviction, making the Lithuanian authorities’ continued request for surrender an abuse of process.
The respondent’s solicitor had written that the complainant intended to travel to Dublin to assist him. The complainant, identified in the judgment as Mr Bagdonavicius, also provided a certificate signed before a Lithuanian notary. It said he had no claims concerning what it called the ransom sought for his lost car, that the respondent had made no demand for money, and that the two men were friends. The judgment noted that the document did not explain why the original police complaint had been made or why the complainant no longer wished to participate.
The Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s office told the court that the authorities continued to seek surrender and would continue the prosecution if surrender was ordered. The letter did not explain how the prosecution might succeed without the complainant’s cooperation. The judge said it was not decisive to the outcome.
The applicant’s barrister argued that the High Court was not to assess the strength of the evidence or decide whether a prosecution could succeed. The judge relied on a Supreme Court ruling in *Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dundon*, which said the adequacy of evidence and whether there was a prima facie case were not matters for surrender proceedings.
The judge held that the availability or willingness of a witness to testify was for the requesting state’s courts to assess. Even if the prosecution did not proceed, the judgment said, that would not oblige Ireland to refuse surrender. The objection was rejected as no abuse of process.
Having found the statutory requirements for surrender satisfied, the High Court granted the order for the respondent’s surrender to a person authorised by Lithuania to receive him. The order concerned surrender; the judgment did not determine guilt or the outcome of any Lithuanian prosecution.