European Arrest Warrant in UK Law

The question certified by the Divisional Court is: For the reasons given above and those given by the Divisional Court, the answer is that the reference is to any domestic warrant on which the European arrest warrant is based, and not to any other European arrest warrant which may have been issued on the basis of any such domestic warrant.

There is no indication that it is any concern of the executing Member State to inquire as to the number of offences to which the sentence relates, if there was more than one. It is the length of the sentence that the requested person is to be required to serve, and the length of that sentence alone, that determines whether or not it falls within the scope of a European arrest warrant.

Upon receiving the documents set out in Chapter II of these Rules, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania or the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania shall analyse the above documents and, if there are all preconditions listed in paragraphs 3 or 4 of the Rules, shall issue the European Arrest Warrant taking into consideration the severity and type of the offence committed and the suspected, accused or convicted person's personality.

It will not be appropriate for requesting judicial authorities to be pressed for further information relating to the statements made in an EAW pursuant to article 4a save in cases of ambiguity, confusion or possibly in connection with an argument that the warrant is an abuse of process. The issue at the extradition hearing will be whether the EAW contains the necessary statement. It does not contemplate that the executing state will conduct an independent investigation into those matters.

I am inclined to think that the essential characteristics of an issuing judicial authority are that it should be functionally (but not necessarily institutionally) independent of the executive. As we have seen, the fundamental objective of the Framework Decision was to replace a political process with a nonpolitical process. This could only be achieved if the new "judicialised" system was operated by persons who de facto operated independently of the executive.

The important underlying assumption of the Framework Decision is that member states, sharing common values and recognising common rights, can and should trust the integrity and fairness of each other's judicial institutions.

But the liberty of the subject is at stake here, and generosity must be balanced against the rights of the persons who are sought to be removed under these procedures. But the task has to be approached on the assumption that, where there are differences, these were regarded by Parliament as a necessary protection against an unlawful infringement of the right to liberty.