Renke v Prosecutor General Office of Republic of Lithuania
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LEVESON,MR JUSTICE NICOL |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 2027 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/3984/2010 |
| Date | 20 July 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 2027 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE DIVISIONAL COURT
Before: Lord Justice Leveson
Mr Justice Nicol
CO/3984/2010
Mr M Summers (instructed by Wells Burcombe) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr B Watson (instructed by the CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(As approved)
: I will ask Nicol J to give the first judgment of the court.
: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Evans who, on 19 March 2010, ordered the appellant's extradition to Lithuania on a European arrest warrant to face charges of membership of a criminal organisation, extortion and destruction of property. Lithuania is a category 1 territory and therefore Part 1 of the Extradition Act applies. The Extradition Act, section 2(4), requires a European arrest warrant to contain prescribed information. By paragraph (c) of section 2(4) this includes:
“particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence, the time and place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence…”
That provision in the Extradition Act corresponds to the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002, 2002/584/JHA, Article 8.1(e), which requires the European arrest warrant to include:
“A description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person…”
In this case the European arrest warrant said:
“This warrant relates in total……3 (three)……offences.
Description of the circumstances in which the offence(s) was (were) committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence(s) by the requested person:
1) Saulius Renke is accused of the following: in 1995 (exact time was not determined in the course of pre-trial investigation) in the Republic of Lithuania, when Gintautas Žukauskas and Rimantas Žukauskas formed a criminal orginization for the purposes of joint criminal activity, ie commission of major crimes, Saulius Renke voluntarily agreed to join this criminal gang and participated in the commission of intentional crimes—extortion and destruction of property. S Renke is accused of criminal offence punishable under Art. 227, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (1961, edition in force until 2003-05-01).
2) On 28 October 1998, near the house No. 21 in P. Cvirkos St (Gargždal Town), Saulius Renke, acting together with other members of criminal organization, which was formed and led by Gintautus Zukauskas and Rimantas Zukauskas, stole the car ‘AUDI 200’ (state reg. no. P508798, 16 000 LTL value) belonging to R Grunduins, Afterwards S Renke organised the property of the victim to be extorted and made an arrangement with R Daugéla to that end ie demanded 2300 US dollars from the victim in exchange for the said car. S Renke is accused of criminal offences punishable under Art 18, Paragraph 4, Art 273, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (1961).
3) Under Sautius Renke's order, on 12 January 1999, at approx 1 am, near the house No 5 in Vingio St (Klaipéda City), the car ‘Audi 200’ (state reg no GLT 012) belonging to S Petraitis was burned up, whereupon the victim suffered material damage of 1050 LTL. Furthermore, Saulius Renke intending to take his revenge on R Kupšys, security guard of the private company ‘Tanoka’, for the conflict in the bar, on 15 October 2000, at approx 2:45 am, near the club ‘Indigo’ in Janonio St (Klaipeda City) poured some flammable liquid over the car ‘VW Golf’ belonging to R Kupšys, thus setting it on fire. Because these acts, the victim suffered material damage amounting to 4000 LTL. S Renke is accused of criminal offences punishable under Art 18, Paragraph 4, Art 278, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (1961).
Nature and legal classification of the offence(s) and the applicable statutory provision/code:
Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (Edition in force till 1 May 2003)
Article 18 (Complicity)
Complicity is an international joint involvement of two or more persons in the commission of a crime. Apart from the perpretrator, the accomplice also includes the organizer, the abettor and the accessory.
The perpretrator is a person who actually commits the crime.
The organizer is a person who organizes or heads the commission of a crime.
Criminal Code of the Republic of Luthuania (Edition in force till 1 May 2003)
Article 227 (Criminal Organization)
Act of gathering three or more persons together for the purposes of engaging in joint criminal activity—commission of major crimes, as well as participation in the activities of such an organization,
Shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term from 4 to 10 years.
Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (Edition in force till 1 May 2003) Article 273 (Extortion) Any person who openly, under pretext of offering services or in any other way, demands property or a property right from another person or demands him to commit any other acts related to property or to refrain from such acts, and directly or indirectly threatens to use physical violence against the victim or someone close to him or to destroy or damage their property, or uses any other kind of mental coercion (extorts property)
Shall be punished by imprisonment for a term from 2 to 5 years and a fine. Any person who when extorting property uses physical force, destroys or damages property or uses other means of physial coercion, or who commits the same act with a group of conspiring persons, or who commits the same act repreatedly, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term from 3 to 8 years and a fine.
Criminal Codeo of the Republic of Lithuania (Edition in force till 1 May 2003)
Article 278 (Delibertate Destruction or Damage to Property)
Any person who deliberately destroys or damages property belonging to another person, shall be punished by correctional labour for a term of up to 2 years or a fine. Any person who destroys or damages the property of another person by setting it on fire or in any other manner dangerous to people, or by dismantling or damaging equipment for communications, electricity, gas, heating or water facilities, or who destroys or damages treasures of historical and cultural value or the property of great value belonging to another person,
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to seven years with or without a fine.”
The first ground of appeal, on behalf of the appellant, is that the third offence is ambiguous because it relates to two separate incidents: one on 12 January 1999 in Vingio Street, Klaipeda City, the other on 15 October 2000 in Janonio Street, Klaipeda City.
Mr Summers, for the appellant, relies on the decision of the Irish Supreme Court of 31 July 2008 in the case of Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Desjatnikovs [2008] IESC 53. There the extradition of Desjatnikovs was sought by Latvia. He was accused of misappropriation of property. As with the present case, there was an apparent mismatch between the number of offences to which the warrant was said to relate, in that case one, and the description of the conduct which gave rise to the warrant. In that case the warrant went on to describe what were apparently two separate incidents. Denham J, who gave the judgment of the court, said of this at paragraph 4:
“Thus the warrant expressly states that it refers to one offence, but it is not clear which is the offence. Is it the initial facts relating to the three alleged occasions on which he handed out to himself cash from the cash desk of the pawnshop? Yet there are also facts about an allegedly unrepaid loan? I agree with the finding of the learned trial judge that it is not clear to which set of facts the one offence relates, ie the taking of cash or the unrepaid loan.
On this ground alone I would have a concern in ordering the surrender of the appellant, as the situation is ambiguous. However, my decision does not turn on this issue.”
Mr Watson for the respondent says that the warrant is clear. It shows that the appellant is...
To continue reading
Request your trial