The High Court directed that Martin Gerard Holden be surrendered to Lithuania under a European arrest warrant, rejecting his objections that no decision had been made to charge and try him and that he faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in detention.
Mr Justice Edwards delivered the judgment on 11 February 2013. Holden did not consent to surrender. The warrant, issued by Lithuania on 12 August 2010, sought him for trial on five alleged offences. The court said each carried a potential maximum sentence of eight years and found the warrant’s minimum gravity threshold was met. It also found the statutory requirements for surrender were otherwise satisfied.
On the prosecution-stage objection, Holden relied on Lithuanian material describing the case as being at the pre-trial investigation stage. Lithuania’s issuing judicial authority said the investigation had been completed, that further steps were needed to prepare an indictment and bring the case to court, and that Holden’s participation was necessary. The court applied the statutory presumption that a decision had been made to charge and try him. It concluded that Holden had not produced cogent evidence tending to rebut that presumption and rejected his objection under section 21A.
Holden also argued that surrender would breach his rights because of detention conditions in Lithuania. In an affidavit, he described a 2010 period of detention in Vilnius, alleging overcrowding, cold cells, inadequate bedding and food, and unsanitary conditions. The judge accepted his account as credible, but found that the short period he described did not establish a breach of his rights. The court also considered that, if surrendered, Holden would be held in an adult remand prison, though he might possibly be returned to police detention temporarily for questioning.
The court reviewed reports and earlier findings about Lithuanian prisons, including past overcrowding at Lukiðkės Remand Prison. It also considered a 2012 letter from Lithuania’s Ministry of Justice describing repairs, reduced prisoner numbers and planned improvements. The judge found the older evidence insufficient to rebut the presumption that Lithuania would respect Holden’s fundamental rights. The section 37 objection was rejected.
The court concluded that surrender was not prohibited under either section 21A or section 37 and that the section 16 requirements were met. It directed surrender to a person authorised by Lithuania to receive Holden. The judgment does not record the physical transfer taking place.