The High Court has ruled that the surrender of Mindaugas Veresovas to Lithuania is not prohibited under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and may be ordered. The request is for him to face trial on an allegation of causing grievous bodily harm; the court made no finding on the allegation itself.
Ms Justice Donnelly delivered judgment on 30 March 2022. The EAW was issued on 1 December 2015, and Veresovas was arrested in Ireland on 26 May 2016. The judgment’s delivery was delayed after he failed to appear in court to answer bail on 27 February 2017. He was rearrested on 9 March 2022 and remanded in custody until judgment.
The main issue argued was whether Lithuania’s Prosecutor General, who issued the warrant, was a judicial authority under the Act and the EU Framework Decision. Relying on earlier decisions in related proceedings and the absence of new facts on the point, the judge held that the Prosecutor General met that definition. She also found that the decision to issue the warrant could be subject to court proceedings meeting the requirements of effective judicial protection. The objection was rejected.
The court also rejected an objection under section 21A, which requires refusal of surrender if there has been no decision in the issuing state to charge and try the person. Veresovas’s lawyer argued that the matter remained at a pre-trial investigation stage and that no charge had been made. Lithuanian authorities said the case, with an Act of Indictment, had been sent to a district court and returned to the prosecutor for further investigation because the indictment had not been served on Veresovas. The judge found that the statutory presumption of a decision to charge and try had not been displaced and, independently, that the evidence showed such a decision had been made.
The judge also rejected objections concerning personal and family rights and the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in detention. She said the personal and family rights claim lacked supporting evidence from Veresovas. On detention conditions, she found the material relied on was not sufficiently updated or specific to require further inquiries, and was not satisfied there was a real risk to his rights if surrendered.
The court concluded that surrender was not prohibited by the Act and said it could make an order for surrender to a person authorised by Lithuania to receive him. The judgment records the court’s conclusion and its authority to make such an order; it does not state that a surrender order had already been made.