Agne Sumbre v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Supperstone |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 2991 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/645/2019 |
| Date | 06 November 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 2991 (Admin)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Supperstone
Case No: CO/645/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
In the matter of an appeal under s.26 of the Extradition Act 2003
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Saoirse Townshend (instructed by Oracle Solicitors) for the Applicant
Hannah Hinton (instructed by the CPS) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 15 October 2019
Approved Judgment
Introduction
The Applicant applies for permission to appeal against the decision of District Judge Baraitser of 8 February 2019 to order her extradition to Lithuania.
The sole ground of appeal is that the District Judge (“DJ”) was wrong in her conclusion that extradition was a proportionate interference with the right to private and family life of the Applicant and her three children, pursuant to s.21A of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the Act”) and Article 8 ECHR.
On 8 July 2019 Sir Wyn Williams, sitting as a High Court Judge, ordered that the application for permission be adjourned to be listed in court as a “rolled-up hearing”.
The European Arrest Warrant
The Applicant is a Lithuanian national. She is sought pursuant to an accusation European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) issued by the Prosecutor General's Office in Lithuania (“The Respondent”) on 13 June 2018. The EAW was certified by the National Crime Agency on 18 June 2018. The judicial authority seeks the Applicant's return for 21 offences of forgery and fraud allegedly committed between February 2017 and March 2018. In summary the Applicant, acting with others as part of a conspiracy, is said to have used computer software to create false documents which she subsequently used in order to carry out various frauds. It is alleged that various forged documents produced or obtained by the Applicant were sent by her from the UK to an intermediary in Lithuania for the purposes of the sale of real estate belonging to her father. The funds from the sale of these properties were received by her into a UK Barclay's account. The alleged value of the fraud has been calculated to be in the total value of around £350,000 (see EAW, Box E; and judgment of DJ at paras 5, 73 and 96). In addition to the fraud and forgery allegations it is alleged that the Applicant sought to place undue pressure upon a witness during the pre-trial investigation to withhold truthful evidence from investigators. The twenty-first allegation is one of perverting the course of justice. The maximum sentences for these offences are between 2 and 8 years.
The judgment of the District Judge
The Applicant gave evidence. She was born on 5 June 1987. She has three children, Jorune (born 22 January 2004), Titas (born 30 September 2008) and Kajus (born 15 November 2013). The Applicant was 16 when Jorune was born. She was living at the time in Lithuania with her mother, who was working as a midwife. She had separated from the fathers of Titas and Kajus by the time they were born. The children do not share the same fathers and none have contact with them. The Applicant came to the UK in May 2012. Her mother (Ms Asta Stumbriene) and the children joined her in September 2012. She worked on a self-employed basis as a stylist and make-up artist.
Ms Stumbriene gave evidence. She is 57 years old (born 19 February 1962). She stated that since 29 October 2018 she has lived in King's Lynn with her new partner. She said that if her daughter is extradited she will move back to London to care for her grandchildren (para 35(f)). Paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment record Ms Stumbriene's evidence:
“37. Ms Stumbriene stated that if her daughter were extradited she would have to change her life again; change her accommodation; look for a new job; and she would no longer be able to live with her partner as he has worked in King's Lynn for 17 years and would be unlikely to move. She stated she would have to work whilst the children were at school and would receive only a limited income. It would be very hard to cope with work and taking care of the three children. She also stated she has Type 2 diabetes and was concerned that stress would affect her health.
38. She stated: ‘however it doesn't matter what is going to happen I would not leave my grandchildren alone’ (paragraph 4 addendum report).”
Paragraphs 41–49 of the judgment refer to the CYPS Single Assessment Report of Ms Tiara Maroof dated 24 August 2018, prepared on behalf of the Newham Children's Social Care services (“CSC”). In addition to the Applicant, her three children and Ms Stumbriene, contributors to the assessment are named as Arnas Civicka (mother's first cousin), and Saul German (family friend). Ms Maroof noted that “all the children speak Lithuanian and English” (page 19). Jorune is bilingual and Kajus has been attending a Lithuanian private nursery (page 11). In relation to plans for the care of the children the judgment (at para 46) records:
“The maternal grandmother, Ms Stumbriene, will be caring for the children if she [Ms Stumbre] was to be extradited back to Lithuania” (page 12).
Ms Stumbriene has been clear that she has no plans to leave the children with anyone else or return back to Lithuania (page 14). If she does return to Lithuania she would take the children with her. If Ms Stumbre is imprisoned she reports she will continue to care for them until her release.
The judgment continues:
“47. In relation to Ms Stumbriene:
(a) She has the ability to meet the basic care needs of the children as she cared for them during Ms Stumbre's detention (on remand pending a successful application for bail).
(b) During this period Ms Stumbriene was taking the children to school, tending to their personal care, providing them with balanced meals and providing a safe home environment.
…
(g) She loves her grandchildren very much and wants to be there for them when their mother cannot be. She is able to give them affection, love and encouragement. …”
The DJ noted (at para 50) that an e-mail dated 8 January 2019 from Anna Fair, Executive Assistant on behalf of Grainne Siggins, Executive Director, Strategic Commissioning, London Borough of Newham, includes the following:
“If the grandmother were to become the children's primary carer, she would derive the right to reside in the UK from them, for as long as at least one remained in education. On that basis, she should be entitled to benefits, Housing Benefit, (depending on the nature of any tenancy), Council Tax Reduction and Universal Credit. She would also be eligible to be considered under homelessness provisions.”
The DJ, in setting out her findings in relation to the Article 8 issue, noted that “Ms Stumbriene has stated unequivocally that she would not leave her grandchildren and will care for them no matter what happens (paragraph 4 addendum statement of Ms Stumbriene)” (para 90). The DJ further noted that “She is a relatively young grandmother at 56 years old and has cared for all three children, alone, recently. On the assessment of Ms Maroof, this period of caring was successful” (para 91).
At paragraphs 100–101 of her judgment the DJ set out the competing interests in favour of and against extradition. The DJ said:
“100. In the balance in favour of extradition, I take account of these factors:
• The weighty requirement on the UK to fulfil obligations under the EAW scheme.
• Mutual confidence and respect for the decisions of the judicial authority.
• The constant and weighty public interest in extradition.
• Ms Stumbre's mother, Ms Stumbriene, has agreed to care for her three children for the period of her absence from the UK. They will be looked after by a close relative who loves them and would do anything to help and support them.
• If need be, the British State will provide for Ms Stumbriene, as the sole carer of three children, with the benefits appropriate to her needs.
• The length of time Ms Stumbre will be absent from her children is not known. She is entitled to make applications for bail to the Lithuanian courts which will take all of her circumstances into account. If she is convicted it is open to the Lithuanian courts to impose a suspended prison sentence. Ordinarily the interests of children will be taken into account in making these decisions.
• Medical assistance, including psychiatric and psychological intervention is likely to be available to both Ms Strumbriene and Jorune, should they need it.
• The allegations are serious, in particular in light of the value of this fraud.
• The allegations are recent. There has been no delay in this request for Ms Stumbre's removal.
• Ms Stumbre's current circumstances are very similar to those which existed when these offences are said to have been committed.
101. In the balance for the Requested Person, I take account of these factors:
• Ms Stumbre has a settled life in the UK. She has lived here since 2012.
• Extradition and consequent separation is likely to be psychologically detrimental to Ms Stumbre, her mother and her children.
• Two of the children are still young and one is within the ‘critical period’ of child-parent attachment, considered to be between six months and five years' old.
• The eldest child has shown signs of ongoing psychological stress which has included self-harm.
• The circumstances in which Ms Stumbriene may need to care for these children may be considerably harsher than they currently experience.
• Ms Stumbriene's symptomology may increase to a formal diagnosis of depression and anxiety develop into an anxiety disorder if she is left to care for the children. This would impact on her ability to care for them by herself.
• Ms Stumbre is not a fugitive from justice.
• Ms Stumbre has no convictions either in the UK or in Lithuania.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Victoria Stumbre v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania
...was made on 8 February 2019. An appeal against that order was dismissed on 6 November 2019 ( AB v Lithuanian Judicial Authority [2019] EWHC 2991 (Admin), Supperstone J). An application to reopen the appeal was refused by Johnson J on 28 October 2020. Ms Stumbre was surrendered pursuant to ......
-
Victoria Stumbre v Prosecutor General's Office (Lithuania) (No.2)
...between February 2017 and March 2018. Her Article 8 appeal culminated in an adverse judgment of Supperstone J on 6 November 2019 [2019] EWHC 2991 (Admin), which sets out the background. She is now back before this Court, wanted in conjunction with an accusation Extradition Arrest Warrant i......
-
AB v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania
...of this judgment was subsequently made in writing and was granted (as it had been in respect of the judgment of 6 November 2019 [2019] EWHC 2991 (Admin)) by a separate and subsequent Order of Fordham J made on 28 August ...