Arunus Kybartas v Republic of Lithuania
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 780 (Admin) |
| Date | 06 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | CO/5447/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2015] EWHC 780 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Cranston
CO/5447/2014
Ms Y Bhatt (instructed by Lloyds PR Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Ms R Hill (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Introduction
This is an appeal from the decision of Chief Magistrate Riddle in the Westminster Magistrates Court of 20 November 2014. He ordered the appellant's extradition on an European Arrest Warrant issued by the Ministry of Justice in Lithuania to serve a sentence there for convictions imposed by a German court. The Ministry of Justice issued that warrant on 13 March 2013 and it was certified by what was then the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 3 June 2013.
The appellant's extradition is sought to serve a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year, 7 months and 26 days in respect of three offences. The warrant says this about the convictions by the German court in relation to those offences:
"Offences: 1–2. On 4 October 2003, [the appellant] convinced Uhlig and Knicher to sell him their cars [and then the details are given] and to report to the insurance agencies… and to the German police that the cars had been stolen.
[Offence] 3. On 23 January 2004 [the appellant] took over the car Mercesdes-Benz E55 AMG [and the details are given of the licence plate] which was allowed to be used for Sabahattin Katirei prosecuted separately and owned by Daimler-Chryeler Service Leasing Gmbh; the car was worth around EUR 94000 and was parked in the territory of the firm Pit-Stop at Urbanstrasse 96, Berlin. Upon agreement, he received the starting key, technical voucher and insurance card of the car. The car had been stolen and appropriated. [The appellant] transferred the car together with the starting key, technical voucher and insurance card to Uhlig, so that the latter would transport this car from Berlin to Lithuania in order to [indecipherable word] it. He assigned Kukulies to accompany Uhlig while transporting the car to Lithuania [certain indecipherable words]. On 24 January 2004, Uhlig and Kukulies transported the car Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG to Lithuania and transferred it to he seller indicated by [the appellant]."
Under an arrangement between Germany and Lithuania, the appellant, having been convicted in the local court of Berlin-Tiergarten in Germany, the sentence is to be served in Lithuania. Elsewhere in the warrant, the explanation is that the appellant was present in the local court of Berlin-Tiergarten for his conviction but he was absent when the Lithuanian court rendered its ruling in November 2012, as a result of which the sentence imposed by the German court was "approximated" with the Lithuanian laws, and the sentence of imprisonment was determined. That ruling of the Lithuanian court has not been appealed. The warrant then explains that the appellant has absconded from serving his sentence.
Before me, Ms Bhatt has advanced an argument which, through no fault of her own, was not before the Chief Magistrate. It revolves around the details in the warrant. She has made submissions in relation to both sections 2 and section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act"). Section 2(6) requires the warrant to contain the particulars of the conviction and section 10 imposes a duty on the court to decide whether the offence is an extradition offence.
Before outlining the details of those submissions, it is appropriate to summarise their practical implication. That warrant should have stated where the effect of offences 1 and 2 occurred. In particular, Ms Bhatt's contention is that it should have stated that the loss suffered by the insurance company, if there was a loss, occurred in Germany. In other words, the warrant should have stated that they were German insurance companies who were adversely affected by the appellants' behaviour. That also is the essence of Ms Bhatt's submission in relation to offence 3. In that respect, as I...
To continue reading
Request your trial