The Supreme Court has dismissed Liam Campbell’s appeal against an order for his surrender to Lithuania, finding that he had not rebutted the statutory presumption that a decision had been made to charge and try him.
Campbell is sought in connection with three alleged offences, including smuggling and firearms offences linked to an alleged effort to bring weapons and explosives from Lithuania to Ireland in 2006 and 2007. The judgment also describes the warrant as concerning terrorism. These are allegations; the appeal concerned surrender, not whether Campbell committed the offences.
The appeal followed a High Court surrender order made on 13 July 2020 and upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court considered whether section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 required refusal of surrender because Lithuania had not made a decision to charge and try Campbell. The Court addressed that legal question and the evidence about the stage reached in the Lithuanian process.
The judgment explains that Lithuania’s procedure requires a preliminary investigation and that the suspect must be given an opportunity to respond before formal charging steps are completed. The Lithuanian authorities told the Minister that the case contained sufficient evidence to suspect Campbell and that, if he were surrendered, there was a high probability an indictment would be drawn up and the case sent to court. They said his return was not needed to gather further evidence.
Baker J. held that section 21A must be applied with regard to differences between national legal systems. A decision to try did not require that formal charges had already been laid or that trial proceedings had begun. The relevant question was whether a present decision or intention to prosecute existed, supported by sufficient evidence, rather than whether further investigation after surrender would determine whether to prosecute.
The Court distinguished the case from Minister for Justice v Bailey, where the evidence showed that the requested person was sought to continue an investigation and the decision to try depended on its outcome. Here, Baker J. considered the Lithuanian authorities’ evidence showed that they had sufficient evidence and had committed themselves to prosecution as far as their procedures then allowed.
Section 21A presumes that the required decision has been made unless the person resisting surrender proves otherwise. The Court said the appellant had not rebutted that presumption. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court surrender order in place. The Supreme Court did not itself make a finding that Campbell was guilty or order his conviction.