Rinkevicius v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ouseley |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 145 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/3164/2017 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 17 January 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 145 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr Justice Ouseley
CO/3164/2017
APPEARANCES
Mr J Swain (instructed by Sonn MacMillan Walker Ltd) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr R Evans (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Inyundo at Westminster Magistrates' Court ordering the extradition of the appellant to Lithuania to face trial on one charge of forging a document for the purposes of fraud. The sole issue is whether the District Judge ought to have ordered the appellant's discharge pursuant to s.21A of the Extradition Act 2003. The judge had to decide whether his extradition would be disproportionate taking into account — and only taking into account — the statutorily specified matters in s.21A(3). Those matters are:
“(a) the seriousness of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence;
(b) the likely penalty that would be imposed if D was found guilty of the extradition offence;
(c) the possibility of the relevant foreign authorities taking measures that would be less coercive than the extradition of D.”
If extradition would be disproportionate the individual must be discharged.
The Practice Direction to the Criminal Procedure Rules Part 50 offers general guidance in relation to the operation of s.21A and the seriousness of the conduct. A number of offences are tabulated. One is “Minor financial offences (forgery, fraud and tax offences)”. It says:
“Where the sums involved are small and there is a low impact on the victim and/or low indirect harm to others, for example (…)
(d) Obtaining a bank loan using a forged or falsified document.”
Whilst that language does not precisely reflect what it is alleged that the appellant did, it is the nearest analogy and such analogous application of the provisions is not ruled out. A number of exceptional circumstances are referred to which mean that the table may be disapplied. Those include significant premeditation.
The guidance says that if an offence falls into one of the categories to which I have referred, the judge should generally determine that extradition would be disproportionate unless there are exceptional circumstances. The relevant part of the EAW was as follows, in box (e):
“2. Furthermore, in February 2011 (…) in Lithuania (…) [the appellant], acting deliberately and being aware of the fact that UAB ‘Litmosa’ (…) had not taken over any property from the former director of UAB ‘Litmosa’, Valentina Radikiene, produced a false document, namely, Act of UAB ‘Litmosa’ Property Transfer-Acceptance wherein he specified that on the grounds of financial leasing contract (…) V. Radikiene transferred to him as the new director of UAB ‘Litmosa’ the property belonging to UAB ‘Siauliu banko lizingas’ and he also signed this act, thus confirming the information which did not correspond to true facts with his signature.”
Thus he was charged with forgery of administrative documents and faced a maximum sentence of three years, although it could be punished by a fine or, it is said, by arrest.
That was not the only offence in the warrant. There was an earlier offence of failing to preserve accounting documents. The District Judge, however, discharged the appellant in respect of that offence, because it was not an extradition offence. Nothing in the description of the first offence has any useful information in relation to the second offence.
The question of s.21A was raised not, it appears, at the initial hearing but was certainly raised a couple of weeks before the final hearing on 9 th June. Neither then nor subsequently has any further information been obtained about the second offence from the requesting judicial authority. Further information was, however, provided by the appellant. This arose because there had in fact been a conviction of him and his co-defendant, Valentina Radikiene, which had been appealed successfully and the success of that appeal led to the need for a trial in relation to which the EAW that I am concerned with was issued.
The appellant gave evidence that he had been told by his solicitor some months after the hearing of the appeal that a fine had been imposed on him of approximately £12,500 and that he had been given nine months' probation. He was not aware of any of the details of the probation. He had not paid the fine. It appears that there was a fine and no custodial sentence, because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Modestas Buivis v Deputy Prosecutor General (Republic of Lithuania)
...to support the inference that the appellant had used it, whether to drive or for any other purpose. She relies on Rinkevicius v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania [2018] EWHC 145 (Admin), where Ouseley J allowed an appeal in a case where the appellant was sought for a single offence of......
-
Daniela Antochi v Richterin Am Amstegericht of the Amstgericht Munchen (Munich), Germany
...does not accept the evidence, it should be challenged. 9 I mention in this context that Ms Westcott relied on Rinkevicius v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania [2018] EWHC 145 (Admin), where – as I read it – Ouseley J recorded (at paragraph 7) that the appellant had given evidence about......