Sarunas Kalinauskas v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Supperstone,Lord Justice Irwin |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 191 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3858/2017 |
| Date | 06 February 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 191 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE Irwin
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE Supperstone
Case No: CO/3858/2017
Jonathan Hall QC and Graeme Hall (instructed by Lansbury Worthington) for the Appellant
James Hines QC and Hannah Hinton (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 9 July 2019
Approved Judgment
Introduction
The appeal before the court concerns an extradition request from Lithuania. The Appellant is a Lithuanian national (born on 10 February 1989) sought to be returned pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) for one offence of supply of 30g of cannabis on 9 April 2014 in Lithuania for 750 LTL which at the then exchange rate is approximately £185.
The EAW describes the allegation in box (e) as follows:
“Sarunas Kalinauskas has been charged with illegal disposal and distribution of narcotic substances namely: on 9 April 2014 at approx. 16:10hrs near the house No.3 in Jotvingiu St in Kaunas City he illegally sold 10g of narcotic substance i.e. cannabis and parts thereof to Samanta Deltuviene and Denisas Saras for LTL 250. Continuing his criminal activities, on 9 April 2014 at approx. 19:00–19:15hrs near the house No.3 in Jotvingiu St in Kaunas City he illegally sold 20g of narcotic substance i.e. cannabis and parts thereof to Samanta Deltuviene and Denisas Saras for LTL 500. Because of these facts Sarunas Kalinauskas has been charged with the commission of criminal offence specified under Article 260 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania.”
The EAW is based on a “ruling to impose a constraint measure of arrest” made by Kaunas District Court on 3 December 2015 (EAW, box (b)). The EAW states in paragraph (f) that the Appellant “has gone into hiding from trial against him, therefore he has been announced wanted further to the court ruling dd. 3 December 2015”.
The EAW was issued on 23 February 2016 and certified by the NCA on 2 March 2016.
On 16 August 2017 District Judge Qureshi (“DJ”) at the Westminster Magistrates' Court ordered the Appellant's extradition to Lithuania.
On 14 December 2017 King J granted permission to appeal on two grounds: (1) extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the Appellant's Article 8 ECHR rights, contrary to s.21A(1)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003 (“ EA”); and (2) extradition would not be proportionate, contrary to s.21A(1)(b) EA.
On 30 January 2019 Ouseley J granted permission to appeal on an additional ground that, if extradited, there is an arguable real risk of detention in inhuman and/or degrading conditions in Lithuanian Correction Houses, contrary to s.21A(1)(a) EA and Article 3 ECHR (“the Article 3 ECHR ground”).
The Article 3 ECHR ground arose in three other cases ( Bartulis CO/3734/2018; Kmitas CO/3739/2018; and Ostapec CO/3737/2018). The Appellant's case was accordingly linked with those cases and they all came on for hearing before the court on 9 July 2019.
At the hearing we allowed the Appellant's appeal on grounds of proportionality under s.21A(1)(b) EA, and quashed the order for the Appellant's extradition pursuant to s.27(5)(b) EA.
It was not therefore necessary for us to determine either the Article 8 ECHR ground of appeal or, in the Appellant's case, the Article 3 ground.
We stated that we would give short reasons for our decision at a later date, which we now do.
Extradition would not be proportionate, contrary to s.21A(1)(b) EA
Section 21A(1)(b) EA provides that surrender will be barred where extradition would be “disproportionate”. Section 21A(2) provides that in making the proportionality assessment, the district judge “must consider the specified matters… so far as the judge thinks it appropriate to do so”. Section 21A(3) provides the specified matters which a judge must consider:
“(a) The seriousness of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence;
(b) the likely penalty that would be imposed …
(c) the possibility of the relevant foreign authorities taking measures that might be less coercive than… extradition.”
The DJ was satisfied that the Appellant's extradition would be proportionate. He so concluded for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Modestas Buivis v Deputy Prosecutor General (Republic of Lithuania)
...inferences from the EAW and can draw on domestic sentencing practice. 7. In Kalinauskas v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania [2020] EWHC 191 (Admin), the appellant was sought for a drugs offence for which the sentencing range in England and Wales was between a low-level community order......
-
Mykhailo Kozak v BUDA Central District Court, Hungary
...relies on other authorities in which this issue has arisen. The Appellant draws attention to the case of Kalinauskas v Lithuania [2020] EWHC 191 where, at paragraph 20, the Divisional Court recorded that they were in no doubt that the Appellant had served in excess of any likely sentence as......
-
Eimantas Peikauskas v Prosecutor Generals Office (Lithuania)
...draw inferences from the EAW and can draw on domestic sentencing practice. 7 In Kalinauskas v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania [2020] EWHC 191 (Admin), the appellant was sought for a drugs offence for which the sentencing range in England and Wales was between a low-level community o......
-
Modestas Buivis v Deputy Prosecutor General (Republic of Lithuania)
...The third stage in the argument is that the answer to the second step then produces the same consequence as arose in Kalinauskas [2020] EWHC 191 (Admin) at paragraphs 16 to 22. I went on to explain that this point had struck me, on the papers, as one in relation to which it was appropriate......