Arnas Baranauskas v Ministry of Justice of The Republic of Lithuania (lithunanian Judicial Authority)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LEVESON,MR JUSTICE SILBER |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 1859 (Admin) |
| Date | 02 July 2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/3117/2009 |
[2009] EWHC 1859 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Before: Lord Justice Leveson
Mr Justice Silber
CO/3117/2009
Mr Malcolm Hawkes (instructed by BSB Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Ben Lloyd (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
: Silber J will give the first judgment.
: Arnus Baranauskas, the appellant, appeals against a decision of District Judge Nicholas Evans dated 25 March 2009 by which he ordered the extradition of the appellant to Lithuania pursuant to section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, in order that the appellant could serve a prison sentence of 38 months for an offence of violent rape of a male.
The basis of the challenge to the extradition in front of the District Judge related to the treatment that the appellant was likely to receive on his return to Lithuania. Mr Malcolm Hawkes, who appears on behalf of the appellant, took us to the ECPT report of 2004, which talks of the ill-treatment at the Marijampole Correction Home. The report stated:
“At Marijampole Correction Home many consistent accounts were received, from prisoners interviewed individually, of deliberate physical ill-treatment by staff. A number of these allegations related to beatings said to have been inflicted by masked members of the establishment's special intervention group during regular three-monthly cell searches. Further, at Vilnius-Lukiškes Remand Prison and the Prison Hospital, a few prisoners claimed that they had been subject to physical ill-treatment (beatings) or excessive use of force by custodial staff.”
There were also allegations made of inter-prisoner violence, and the writers of the report explained that they were “seriously concerned by the level of inter-prisoner violence at Marijampole Correction Home. The prospect of becoming victims of beatings, sexual assaults, extortion, and a host of indignities was a daily reality for many vulnerable prisoners. Such a situation could fairly be described as inhuman and degrading”. A particular feature on which he relied was the way in which the ECPT report dealt with vulnerable prisoners. It was noted that prisoners who requested a transfer but who refused to name the other prisoners responsible for threatening them “were repeatedly punished with cellular confinement for several months or several years on end”.
The District Judge did not accept that as being sufficient to refuse the order for extradition. He explained in the reasons that he gave that, first, many of the incidents relied upon were of some antiquity. He referred to what had been said in the reports relied upon by Mr Hawkes. He also drew attention to what had been said by Latham LJ in Edgaras Miklis v The Deputy Prosecutor General of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1032 (Admin), in which he said:
“The fact that human rights violations take place is not of itself evidence that a particular individual would be at risk of being subjected to those human rights violations in the country in question. That depends upon the extent to which the violations are systemic, their frequency and the extent to which the particular individual in question could be said to be specifically vulnerable by reason of a characteristic which would expose him to human rights abuse.”
The District Judge came to the conclusion that it was difficult to draw any clear conclusions, but he noted that the Lithuanian authorities were well aware of the international criticism. He took into account the fact that the appellant was specifically vulnerable by reason of his conduct (a male rape) that had led to his conviction. The District Judge also relied on various statements from the Ministry of Justice in a communication dated 5 January 2009, where various undertakings were given, and it was shown that steps had been taken. The District Judge concluded in paragraph 8(f) that:
“… these steps clearly indicate a recognition of the sort of problems, about which the appellant expresses concern, and go a long way to satisfy me that steps can and will be taken to ensure the defendant's well-being whilst he is held in custody.”
He was then satisfied that the extradition of the appellant would not be incompatible with his Convention rights.
The grounds of appeal were that the District Judge erred in failing to find the appellant would be at risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was said that the District Judge failed to take into account the objective evidence, which showed the extent of violence in Lithuanian prisons, which occurred because prison staff assaulted or intimidated inmates. There was also the problem of unchecked violence between the prisoners themselves.
Another feature which it is said the District Judge did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poland V. Marcin Osinski
...had been delayed or denied by the Napier case. [34] I was referred to Baranauskas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania [2009] EWHC 1859 (Admin) at paragraph 11 where Silber J. delivered the opinion of the Court. His Lordship indicated that "Council of Europe countries should b......
-
Republic Of Poland V. Dariusz Machon Prisoner In The Prison Of Hm Prison, Saughton, Edinburgh
...the principle of equality of arms. [13] I was then referred to Baranauskas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania [2009] EWHC 1859 (Admin). In paragraph 11 Mr. Justice Silber noted that the appellant in that case had made two unsuccessful applications for legal aid funding and c......
-
Poland v Osinski
...had been delayed or denied by the Napier case. 34. I was referred to Baranauskas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania[2010] Extradition LR 35 at para 11 where Silber J. delivered the opinion of the Court. His Lordship indicated that Council of Europe countries should be assume......
-
Poland v Machon
...satisfy the principle of equality of arms. 13. I was then referred to Baranauskas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania[2010] Extradition LR 35. In para 11 Silber J noted that the appellant in that case had made t2wo unsuccessful applications for legal aid funding and concluded......
-
European Arrest Warrant
...of Torture was found to be too old to reflect the risk posed by Latvian prison conditions in 2009. Baranauskas v Lithuania [2009] EWHC 1859 (Admin) 15. Similarly to Kalniets the Court dismissed the appeal because the Report relied on by the applicant was published in 2004 which was found to......