The High Court ordered the surrender of a woman to Lithuania, where she is wanted for prosecution on 22 alleged offences. Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled on 27 March 2007 that surrender was not prohibited and made the order under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The woman opposed surrender on the basis that detention conditions in Lithuania posed a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She relied on reports by the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee following inspections in 2000 and 2004. Those reports described overcrowding, poor hygiene and other deficiencies, and recorded allegations of ill-treatment at some facilities, including in Marijampole.
The judge noted that the Marijampole Correction Home was a male-only facility and therefore could not be where the woman was detained. A separate Marijampole police detention centre had also been criticised. The judge said there was no evidence establishing where she would actually be held; a women’s population was recorded at Lukiskes Remand Prison in Vilnius, but that facility was only a possibility.
The court also considered a 2006 response from the Lithuanian Government describing measures to improve detention conditions, including staff training, renovation plans, changes to criminal procedure and the opening of a new prison in Kaunas. The judge accepted that the earlier reports gave a bleak picture, but said the response showed improvements had been made and a programme of further work was under way.
To block surrender, the woman had to establish a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment with clear and cogent evidence; speculation or an uncorroborated assertion was insufficient. The judge said the respondent had not provided a sufficiently specific factual basis about the facilities where she was likely to be held. He concluded that the evidence did not rebut the statutory presumption that Lithuania would comply with its obligations, while noting that mutual trust under the European arrest warrant system did not prevent a court from examining an exceptional case.
The judgment records that 21 of the 22 offences were described in the warrant as fraud. The remaining allegation was described as negligent accounting connected with a business; the judge said the alleged conduct would amount to an offence under section 202 of the Companies Act 1990 if committed in Ireland. The judgment does not determine guilt on any of the allegations.