The High Court has ordered Darius Musinskas’s surrender to Lithuania under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, so he can face prosecution over alleged human trafficking offences. The order followed a hearing on his objection that Lithuania had not decided to charge and try him.
The warrant was issued on 19 May 2014 by Lithuania’s Deputy Prosecutor General and endorsed by the High Court that June. Musinskas was arrested and brought before the High Court on 25 November 2021. The warrant seeks his surrender for prosecution over alleged human trafficking offences involving two victims and an organised group, according to information supplied by the Lithuanian authority.
Musinskas initially raised objections concerning his rights, delay and whether the alleged conduct corresponded to an offence in Ireland. At the hearing on 11 February 2022, his counsel confirmed those grounds were no longer being pursued. The sole remaining objection was under section 21A of the 2003 Act, which concerns whether a decision has been made in the requesting state to charge and try the person.
A Lithuanian lawyer’s report, submitted on Musinskas’s behalf, said the case remained at the pre-trial investigation stage, he had not been charged, and a decision to charge and try him had not yet been made. The Lithuanian authority told the High Court that sufficient evidence had been gathered for prosecution and that the pre-trial process required Musinskas to be interviewed before an indictment could be drawn up and the case sent to court.
In a further response, the authority confirmed that an indictment would be prepared and the case referred for trial regardless of whether Musinskas accepted responsibility, commented or protested his innocence in interview. It also clarified that “prosecution” had been omitted from the English translation of the warrant, describing this as a technical mistake.
Applying the Supreme Court’s approach in *Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Olsson*, the High Court said section 21A carries a presumption that a decision to charge and try has been made. It found the lawyer’s report did not provide strong and cogent evidence to rebut that presumption, and was materially consistent with the authority’s answers. The court was satisfied surrender was not precluded under section 21A or another provision of the Act and ordered surrender under section 16. The ruling orders surrender; it does not determine whether Musinskas committed the alleged offences.