The High Court ordered the surrender of Jorintas Sakalauskis to Lithuania to serve a prison sentence, rejecting his objection that the European arrest warrant did not show whether the sentence for each offence met the statutory four-month threshold.
In a judgment delivered on 31 October 2007, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the warrant sought Sakalauskis’s return to Lithuania to serve a sentence of two years and three months, with two years, one month and five days remaining. The sentence had been imposed on 28 October 2005 for two theft offences and one attempted theft offence. The judgment says he was present at his trial, conviction and sentencing, and had appealed the sentence, though he was absent when the appeal was rejected.
The respondent’s sole objection was that the warrant did not specify the penalty for each offence. His counsel argued that this left open the possibility that less than four months remained on one or more offences, which could prohibit surrender under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and the Framework Decision.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform argued that the court could presume the Lithuanian authority had issued a compliant warrant and that the respondent had not shown otherwise. The judge said the respondent bore a heavy onus and had produced no evidence to support the objection. He noted that Sakalauskis had been present at sentencing and could have sought information from a lawyer or the Lithuanian court.
The judge held that the objection did not shift the burden to the applicant and that the stated remaining sentence was sufficient to meet the minimum requirement in the circumstances. He expressed no view on whether section 18 of the Interpretation Act 2005 could assist the applicant. The court also found no other statutory ground to refuse surrender and ordered surrender under section 16(1) of the 2003 Act.