Irena Rozaitiene and Republic of Lithuania
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Higgins LJ |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] NIQB 3 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 12 January 2009 |
| Year | 2009 |
1
Neutral Citation No.: [2009] NIQB 3 Ref:
HIG7357
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
12/01/09
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
_______
Between:
IRENA ROZAITIENE
Appellant;
-and-
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
Respondent.
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003
_______
BEFORE A DIVISIONAL COURT
HIGGINS, GIRVAN AND COGHLIN LJs
________
HIGGINS LJ
[1] This is an appeal under section 26(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 against
a decision of the Recorder of Belfast, His Honour Judge Burgess, whereby he
ordered that the appellant be extradited to the Republic of Lithuania. A
Warrant was issued on 9 November 2004 by the Republic of Lithuania (the
requesting state/respondent) in respect of Mrs Irene Rozaitiene (the
appellant) seeking her arrest in relation to alleged misappropriation of
money. The appellant was arrested on foot of this Warrant on 27 September
2007 in Northern Ireland. She appeared before the Recorder on the same date
and was remanded in custody.
[2] By Order made by the Secretary of State under Section 1 of the
Extradition Act 2003 (the Act) Lithuania is a designated territory for the
purposes of Part I of the Act. The National Criminal Intelligence Service, the
authority designated by the Secretary of State, has certified under Section 2(7)
of the Act that the authority which issued the warrant has the function of
2
issuing warrants in Lithuania. A Part 1 Arrest Warrant is known and referred
to as a European Arrest Warrant (the warrant). Section 3 of the Act provides
for the arrest of the person named in the warrant. Section 4(2) provides that
the arrested person must be brought before the appropriate judge as soon as
practicable. In Northern Ireland the appropriate judge is such county court
judge as is designated for the purposes of Part 1 of the Act – see section
67(1)(c). At the extradition hearing the Judge must decide whether the offence
specified in the warrant is an extradition offence. If it is not the person must
be discharged. If it is an extradition offence the Judge must proceed under
Section 11 and decide whether extradition of the arrested person is barred by
reason of any of the grounds set out in that section. Under Section 11(3) if the
Judge decides that the extradition is barred for one of the specified reasons he
must order the person’s discharge. Under Section 11(5) if the Judge decides
there are no grounds on which the extradition is barred (and the person has
not been convicted of the offence) he must proceed under section 21 and
decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the
Convention rights within the meaning of the Human rights Act 1998. Under
Section 9(4) the Judge may adjourn the hearing and remand the person in
custody or on bail. Under Section 9(3) the Judge has the same powers as a
magistrates’ court would have if the proceedings were the hearing and
determination of a complaint against the arrested person.
[3] At the hearing on 27 September 2007 the Appellant declined to return
voluntarily and the proceedings were adjourned. A number of further
hearings took place before the Recorder at which the Appellant’s legal
advisers sought time in which to obtain information and collate evidence to
be presented on her behalf. The substantive application for extradition came
on for hearing before the Recorder on 10 March 2008.
[4] The Appellant is 56 years of age and is a Lithuanian national. On 12
September 2003 the District Court of Jonava Region in Lithuania issued an
arrest warrant in respect of the Appellant in relation to the alleged
misappropriation of approximately 161,903 LTL (circa £30,000) in money
belonging Rukla Secondary School, where the Appellant was employed as a
Chief Accountant. The European Arrest Warrant is based on this earlier arrest
warrant issued by the Ruklova District Court. Misappropriation of a
substantial sum of money is an offence in Lithuania punishable by a
maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. The European Arrest Warrant
alleged that the Appellant had gone into hiding from and during the pre-trial
investigation of the alleged offence. On 24 April 2003 it was made public that
she was sought in connection with this allegation. The Appellant contends she
left Lithuania on 5 July 2002 in order to travel to the Republic of Ireland. On
arrival there she travelled across the border to Northern Ireland where it is
said two family members were already living. Her husband was left behind in
Lithuania. He has since died. The appellant entered the Republic of Ireland on
a visitor’s visa with the declared intention of visiting her relatives in the
3
Republic of Ireland. However it now appears that her true motive, as she
admitted in evidence before the Recorder, was to find employment in
Northern Ireland, which she did. She was later joined by several of her
children. The family now live at several addresses in Northern Ireland and
the Republic of Ireland and the children work in Dundalk. The appellant
claimed that she was unaware of the existence of the investigation into the
misappropriation of money from the School and the District Court warrant,
until her arrest in September 2007. This is not accepted by the respondent.
[5] The Extradition Act 2003 makes provision for extradition to different
categories of foreign territories and has its origins in a meeting of the
European Council at Tampere in Finland in October 1999. For some time
concerns had been expressed about the existing extradition procedures which
were regarded as too technical and gave rise to inordinate and unnecessary
delay. The legal basis for the Council’s concerns is to be found in Articles 31
and 34 of the Treaty on European Union which, inter alia, propose framework
decisions to harmonise the criminal law of member states, as well as
espousing judicial co-operation in criminal proceedings and the facilitation of
extradition between the jurisdictions of member states. At the meeting in
Finland a decision was taken to abolish the existing extradition procedures,
initially in relation to those fleeing a jurisdiction after final sentence had been
passed. Subsequently a proposal was put forward to introduce a European
Arrest Warrant in respect of those suspected of criminal offences. The
substance of the proposal was the simplification of the procedure whereby a
person in respect of whom a warrant was issued in one Member State, might
be extradited to another Member State. Discussions and consultation took
place which ultimately led to a decision to implement the proposal, which
decision is contained in the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002.
Central to the Framework Decision was the introduction of the European
Arrest Warrant which would lead to surrender of the arrested person
between judicial authorities within the European Union.
[6] The European Arrest Warrant is defined in Article 1 of the Framework
Decision and Article 2 provides for its execution.
"1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial
decision issued by a member state with a view to
the arrest and surrender by another member state
of a requested person, for the purposes of
conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a
custodial sentence or detention order.
“2. Member states shall execute any European
arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of
mutual recognition and in accordance with the
provisions of this Framework Decision.”
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
Poland V. Adam Kropiwnicki
...would be compatible with the accused's Convention Rights [8] I was referred by Mr. Dickson to Rozaitiene v The Republic of Lithuania [2009] NIQB 3, Higgins LJ at paragraph [29] where the court noted the approach taken in Saadi v Italy (2008) 49 EHRR 30, a decision of the Grand Chamber of th......
-
McGowan (Ruairi) v The Republic of Ireland and in the matter of the Extradition Act 2003
...the EAW. The Act was the UK response to that Framework Decision. The judge then referred to Irena Rozaitiene v The Republic of Lithuania [2009] NIQB 3 in which this Court examined the history and intentions behind the EAW. Then at paragraph 21 he referred to the speech of Lord Bingham in R ......
-
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Brendan Mcguigan
...15.3.2011 2011 EWHC 759 JANOVIC v PROSECUTOR GENERALS OFFICE LITHUANIA UNREP 25.3.2011 2011 EWHC 710 ROZAITIENE v REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA 2009 NIQB 3 MIKLIS v PROSECUTOE GENERAL OF LITHUANIA 2006 EWHC (ADMIN) 1032 R (BAGDANAVICIUS) HOME SECRETARY 2005 4 AER 263 CONSTITUTION ART 40.3 MIN FOR J......
-
Lithuania v Liam Campbell
...treatment (Soering v UKHRC(1989) 11 EHRR 439, R (Ullah) v Special AdjudicatorELR(2004) 2 AC 323 and Rozantiene v The Republic of Lithuania[2009] NIQB 3). The judge wrongly circumvented the lack of up to date evidence and his conclusion was speculative. Professor Morgan's evidence had not pe......
Request a trial to view additional results