The High Court has ordered a woman’s surrender to Lithuania for prosecution over four alleged offences connected to a criminal organisation, including human trafficking, drug trafficking and money laundering.
In a judgment delivered on 27 July 2022, Mr Justice Paul Burns dismissed objections brought by Sandra Pagojė under sections 44, 11(1A) and 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. He concluded that surrender was not precluded by the Act and made an order under section 16. The court said it was prepared to hear a separate application under section 18 to postpone surrender so she could make arrangements for her son’s welfare.
The European arrest warrant seeks her surrender to face prosecution, not to serve a sentence. The alleged offences concern participation in a criminal organisation involved in recruiting vulnerable people in Lithuania and taking them to Ireland and Northern Ireland, where they were allegedly exploited to distribute narcotics. The Lithuanian authorities also alleged that the organisation’s leader coordinated activity from Lithuania and that money from drug distribution was returned there and laundered. These are allegations, not findings that the offences occurred.
The respondent argued that surrender for the drug offence was barred because it was alleged to have been committed outside Lithuania. The Minister’s counsel accepted that section 44 would bar surrender if the offence was alleged to have been committed outside Lithuania and Irish law did not provide for the same extraterritorial reach. The judge found, however, that the alleged transnational conspiracy and joint control of narcotics meant the drug offence was alleged to have been committed in Lithuania as well as Ireland and the UK. He therefore dismissed the section 44 objection without needing to decide its second legal requirement.
The court also rejected the argument that the warrant and additional information lacked sufficient particulars. It was satisfied that they outlined the alleged circumstances, timing, locations and Pagojė’s alleged involvement sufficiently for the statutory requirement.
In considering her personal and family circumstances, the judge noted that Pagojė had a young son who depended on her, and that her husband had died in custody during the proceedings. He said surrender would be disruptive but found the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for preventing surrender under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the Constitution. The court did not order postponement under section 18; it said it was willing to hear an application on that issue.