The High Court refused an application to surrender a respondent identified as LG to Lithuanian authorities, ruling that an ambiguity in the European Arrest Warrant meant it could not be satisfied that Lithuania had already decided to charge and try him.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 7 October 2005. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform sought surrender under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 in connection with Lithuanian charges described as misappropriation of property and forgery of an official document, or use or sale of a forged document.
The respondent’s counsel did not dispute his identification, the correspondence between the alleged misappropriation and an Irish offence, or the warrant’s endorsement for execution. The judge rejected the respondent’s objections concerning the five-month gap before an endorsement application and the minimum gravity of the offences. He also found that the facts alleged about cutting the ends from cash receipts could amount to forgery under Irish law.
The application failed on the separate requirement that a decision to charge and try the respondent had already been made in Lithuania. The Act presumed such a decision had been made unless the contrary was shown. The applicant relied on wording at the start of the warrant requesting surrender for criminal prosecution.
But another part of the warrant said the respondent would have to be brought before a Lithuanian judge within 48 hours of surrender to determine whether there were grounds for his arrest. The judge considered that this could mean the decision to proceed with arrest and prosecution would only be made after surrender. Although he regarded that section of the warrant as having been completed in error, he concluded that it was information from the Lithuanian judicial authority and created a serious ambiguity. That was enough to rebut the presumption and leave him unsatisfied that the required decision had already been made.
The court therefore refused the surrender application. It did not decide that the respondent was innocent of the Lithuanian allegations. The judgment also urged lawyers to provide meaningful detail in written points of objection, saying the broad objections filed in this case gave little notice of the arguments to be made.