Lithuania v Liam Campbell
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Morgan LCJ,Girvan LJ,Coghlin LJ |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] NIQB 19 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Docket Number | GIR8753 |
| Date | 22 February 2013 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2013] NIQB 19 Ref:
GIR8753
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
22/02/13
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE EXTRADITION
ACT 2003
BETWEEN
LITHUANIA
Applicant/Appellant
v
LIAM CAMPBELL
Defendant/Respondent
________
Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ
GIRVAN LJ (DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT)
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the Republic of Lithuania which seeks the extradition of
Liam Campbell (“the requested person”) on suspicion of involvement in terrorist
offences on foot of a European Arrest Warrant (“the EAW”) which on 15 December
2008 was issued by the First District Court of Vilnius. An EAW was also issued in
the Republic of Ireland. He was arrested on foot of that warrant in that jurisdiction
and proceedings were commenced there to extradite him to Lithuania. He was
granted bail in those proceedings. In breach of the terms of the bail he left the
Republic and came into Northern Ireland on 22 May 2009. He was initially arrested
here under the provisions of the Terrorism Act but was released after four days
whereupon he was immediately arrested on foot of the EAW. He appeared before
His Honour Judge Burgess (“the judge”) on 27 May 2009.
2
[2] An argument was raised before the judge that because the proceedings in the
Republic were ongoing it would be an abuse of process for a Northern Ireland court
to entertain extradition proceedings. The judge’s ruling that he had jurisdiction and
that the case should proceed was the subject of an appeal to the High Court. The
Divisional Court dismissed the requested person’s application. Subsequently the
Republic of Lithuania withdrew the application against the requested person in the
Republic. The judge rejected a further application to have the Lithuanian application
struck out as an abuse founded on the argument that Lithuanian authorities were
guilty of abusive forum shopping.
[3] The requested person argued before the judge that his extradition should not
be ordered because if he were returned to Lithuania on foot of the EAW his
convention rights would be infringed. Firstly he contended that in breach of Article
6 of the convention he would not be able to obtain a fair trial. Secondly, he argued
that if returned to Lithuania there were strong grounds for believing that he was
likely to be subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment in breach
of Article 3. In particular he claimed that the conditions in which he would be
detained would be inhuman and degrading. He also argued that his extradition
would breach his Article 8 rights.
[4] The judge concluded that the requested person could not surmount what the
judge described as the high hurdle which he had to overcome if he was to establish
that he was at risk of suffering a flagrant denial of his Article 6 rights in Lithuania.
Before this court Mr Macdonald QC on behalf of the requested party submitted that
the judge had not completed the hearing of the case insofar as the requested person
relied on a breach of Article 6 and Article 8 rights and that the judge could not
properly have reached a conclusion on the argument that Article 6 would not be
breached. His ruling was in effect premature.
[5] The judge, however, did conclude that he was satisfied on the evidence that to
extradite the requested person would lead to a breach of Article 3 of his Convention
rights and thus be in breach of the provisions of Section 21 of the Extradition Act
2003.
[6] It is clear that the hearing of this case before the judge took place over a
protracted period and was the subject of many interruptions and adjournments.
Such a state of affair is quite undesirable in relation to a matter which involves the
liberty of the subject and relates to an extradition process which is clearly intended
to be conducted with dispatch and according to tight statutory timetables. There is
insufficient information before the court to reach a conclusion as to why the case
took the length of time which it did. It would appear that delays were at least in part
the result of applications by the requested person who was seeking further
information in Lithuania, who wished to obtain a witness or witnesses from that
jurisdiction and wished to await the outcome of the trial of the requested person’s
brother in Lithuania on similar charges. Whatever the reason for the delay, if the
judge was correct in his conclusion that a breach of Article 3 was established, he
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
Arunas Aleksynas and Others v Minister of Justice, Republic of Lithuania and Another
...institutions differs considerably. The Assurances 17 On 22 nd March 2013 the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland held in Lithuania v Liam Campbell [2013] NIQB 19 that, in the absence of any assurance by the Lithuanian authorities to the contrary, the extradition of Mr Campbell to Lu......
-
Michailovas, Viktoras and The Republic of Lithuania
...dated 7 February 2020, stating that there had been two refusals, one in a Maltese case in July 2017 and the other in Lithuania v Campbell [2013] NIQB 19. The letter asserts, in terms, that each of these cases had been overtaken by more recent events. It further suggested that according to a......
-
Jaroslav Atraskevic v Prosecutor General's Office, Republic of Lithuania
...about prison conditions in that country. The first decision was that of the Queen's Bench Division of Northern Ireland in Lithuania v Liam Campbell [2013] NIQB 9, in which the court held that in the absence of any assurance by the Lithuanian authorities to the contrary, the extradition of M......
-
Guy Jane v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania
...in Lukiskes or Siauliai prison, would face a risk of conditions that would breach article 3. 21 The first relevant decision was Lithuania v Liam Campbell [2013] NIQB 19, where the High Court in Northern Ireland dismissed an appeal by Lithuania against a decision to refuse an extradition bec......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Mutual Recognition and Individual Rights
...473–474.29 High Court of Justic e in Northern Ire land Queen’s Bench Divi sion decision of 16Ja nuary 2013, Lithuania v Liam Campbe ll [2013] NIQB 19, based on ECtHR of 18November 2008 Application No. 871/02, Savenkovas v Lithuania; H igh Court of Eng land and Wales, Que ens Bench Divisio......