The High Court has rejected a Lithuanian man’s objections to surrender under a European Arrest Warrant, finding that the evidence did not establish a real risk of inhuman or degrading prison conditions or a disproportionate interference with his family life.
Ms Justice Donnelly said on 6 October 2015 that she was satisfied she could make an order under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 for the respondent’s surrender to an authorised Lithuanian representative. The judgment records that the warrant sought him for prosecution, not to serve a sentence.
The respondent argued that he risked poor, overcrowded and unhygienic conditions, long periods in his cell and violence from other prisoners. Professor Rodney Morgan’s report described risks at several Lithuanian facilities. Lithuanian authorities told the court that, if the respondent remained under arrest after surrender, he would be held at Siauliai Remand Prison during the court proceedings.
The judge accepted that assurance and considered the evidence about Siauliai, including reports by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and information about subsequent renovations and a fall in prisoner numbers. The prison was reported to be at 95% capacity. The judge concluded that overcrowding there no longer gave rise to concerns amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment, and that improvements had also reduced the concern about a lack of activity for remand prisoners. Conditions could remain far from ideal, she said, but the evidence did not establish the required real risk. She also rejected the objections based on possible police-station detention and inter-prisoner violence.
The respondent also relied on his residence in Ireland since about 2001, his former wife and child, and his current partner and second child. He said surrender would cause them irrevocable damage. The judge found that he had not explained or evidenced particular harm beyond the disruption to family relationships that surrender entails.
The judgment records that the respondent was 19 at the time of the alleged offence. The warrant concerned an alleged organised burglary involving violence against a victim, who was also allegedly forced to drink alcohol. The judge found that the respondent had been aware of the Lithuanian prosecution, had hidden from trial and was responsible for the delay before his arrest in Ireland. These were findings made in deciding the surrender objections; the alleged offence remained before the Lithuanian court for prosecution.
Balancing the respondent’s circumstances against the public interest in surrender, the judge rejected both the prison-conditions and family-life objections and concluded that surrender was not prohibited.