A Supreme Court judge has concluded that the Minister for Justice and Equality did not put forward sufficient evidence to justify postponing Andrius Sciuka’s surrender to Lithuania, after extradition had been ordered under a European Arrest Warrant.
Mr Justice Peter Charleton delivered his judgment on 13 December 2021, concurring with Mr Justice Gerard Hogan. The judgment records a differing view from Mr Justice Woulfe, who considered the postponement lawful. Charleton J preferred Hogan J’s reasoning.
Sciuka had been scheduled to be surrendered to Lithuanian authorities at Dublin Airport on 5 February 2021. The requesting state sought a postponement during the Covid-19 pandemic, citing the closure of the usual Ireland-Germany-Lithuania air route. The source says the High Court ordered postponement; it does not provide the date of that decision.
Charleton J said postponing surrender was an exceptional step, subject to statutory and European time limits. The Minister had to provide sufficient evidence of circumstances beyond the control of the states involved or humanitarian considerations justifying delay. The judge held that evidence that one usual route had closed did not establish that surrender could not take place by another route, such as flying to another hub and continuing by train or bus.
He also addressed judicial notice, which allows courts to rely on facts so widely known or readily established that formal proof is unnecessary. Although the pandemic had disrupted travel, Charleton J said that general knowledge did not establish that other transport options were unavailable in this case. On that point, he said, judicial notice hindered rather than helped the Minister.
The judgment describes humanitarian considerations as a broad category that may include serious risks to a person’s life or health, a need for treatment before travel, or a grave personal or family crisis. It does not treat pandemic-related travel concerns as automatically sufficient to meet that standard.
Charleton J also said surrender proceedings involve an inquisitorial duty on the judge to examine the request and make necessary inquiries. If information is missing, the judge may seek further material rather than treating the shortfall as automatically determinative. The judgment’s stated result is that Hogan J’s reasoning is preferred; this source does not state a separate operative order made by the Supreme Court.