Valintelis v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 16 April 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 1527 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/1562/2014 |
| Date | 16 April 2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2014] EWHC 1527 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Cranston
CO/1562/2014
Ms Rebecca Hill (instructed by Kaim Todner) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Joel Smith (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
(As approved Court)
The appellant, now aged 20 years old, challenges the decision of District Judge Evans made on 1 April 2014 to order his extradition to Lithuania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant is an accusation warrant which was issued by the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Lithuania on 1 March 2012. It was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 27 December of that year. The appellant was arrested on 19 February 2013. The evidence of the police who arrested him was that he was very agitated, both on arrest and when detained. One of the police officers noted that there were extensive scars to his arm.
He was granted conditional bail on 27 February 2013, and he remained on conditional bail until the hearing on 1 April 2014. The delay in the hearing is attributable to the stay pending an authoritative decision on prison conditions in Lithuania. That has now been handed down: Aleksynas & Ors v Minister of Justice, Republic of Lithuania & Anor [2014] EWHC437 (Admin).
The European Arrest Warrant relates to an offence committed on 28 February 2010. It is alleged that the appellant, acting with at least one other person, broke into a residence in Biržai and stole cash in Lithuanian litas, euros and pounds sterling, to the equivalent value of some £14,000.
The matter came before the Biržai Regional Court in March 2010 under an expedited procedure. The appellant was convicted, but in relation to an attempt to steal a laptop. At that point it was not known that the money had been taken. The appellant and his accomplice gave an account to the court that they had intended to steal the laptop from that address but could not find it and had run away. The appellant had visited the property on a previous occasion since he knew a member of the family. As a minor with no previous convictions, he was sentenced to what in this country would be regarded as a caution and he was placed on curfew.
In the following months, the victim of the burglary noticed that the cash had been stolen. The Prosecutor's Office began "proceedings into newly discovered circumstances", and in February of the following year, 2011, the Supreme Court of Lithuania quashed the original conviction. There was a new indictment. The Biržai District Court issued a domestic arrest warrant. By that time, the claimant had come to the United Kingdom. The European Arrest Warrant was issued and the matter eventually came before the district judge in March of this year.
At the hearing, evidence was given by Professor Rod Morgan, a well-known authority in criminal justice, about prison conditions in Lithuania, and by a psychiatrist, Dr Peter Carter, the appellant's treating doctor. Dr Carter had prepared a report on 1 May 2013 in which he reviewed the detailed clinical notes held by the relevant NHS Trust regarding the appellant's psychiatric history since he had arrived here in August 2011. In brief, shortly after the appellant had come here, he voluntarily presented to hospital with a sudden onset of paranoia and was treated with antipsychotic medication, which produced a gradual reduction in the intensity of his persecutory beliefs. Towards the end of 2011, he had become aggressive on several occasions, but this coincided with his abuse of alcohol and cannabis. In September 2012, an occupational therapist had reported that he was increasingly nervous, and at some point he had taken a knife and threatened to kill himself. When informed of the death of his father in November 2012, he had become distressed and had felt that his life was not worth living. He described to Dr Carter that, after his release from prison in Lithuania, he had attempted self-harm on five separate occasions. The notes which Dr Carter reviewed described how the appellant's sister had attended regularly with the appellant and had been of great assistance to him.
Dr Carter's prognosis of the appellant's psychotic illness in his report was good, but if he were to be deprived of his medication there would be a return to his persecutory delusions and an increased risk of suicide intent. Dr Carter opined that the appellant's current risk of suicide was moderate but that there was a high risk of committing suicide should he be threatened with extradition.
That report, as I have said, was dated 1 May 2013. At the hearing before the judge, almost a year after the interview forming the basis of that report, Dr Carter's evidence was that the appellant had responded well to treatment, that he was currently receiving an antipsychotic injection once every two weeks, but that his conditions have not been helped by his misuse of alcohol and heroin. However, Dr Carter told the court that the appellant had by that stage ceased taking heroin and had been prescribed methadone. Dr Carter said that there were a number of different strategies to assist the appellant's good mental health apart from the injections, such as regular contact with a care worker, drugs worker and nurse. He was able to function within the community without undue concern.
Dr Carter said that having family members at hand was an important factor in maintaining stability in his life. His risk of suicide was moderate, but Dr Carter told the court that the appellant responded to major stress situations badly, although Dr Carter's evidence was that it was possible to contain the suicide risk:
"… to remove him from his family removes an important link which is currently highly beneficial for him and will increase the risk of deterioration of his mental wellbeing. Dr Carter accepted the [appellant's] schizophrenia was a well understood condition and there was nothing to suggest any competent psychiatrist in Lithuania would be unable to treat him effectively. He suggested that prompt specialist treatment would be required if the [appellant] were sent to prison for without such treatment the risk of suicide was high. It could remove his capacity to control impulses that make him want to kill himself."
District Judge Evans stated that there would not be a substantial risk of the appellant killing himself. The judge accepted that the appellant did have real mental health issues, but he rejected the appellant's account of five attempts at suicide in Lithuania after he had been released from prison. The judge had a poor opinion of the appellant's credibility, since he had not come clean about the theft of the cash but when caught had told the police that he and his co-accused had only attempted to steal a laptop. The judge regarded the appellant as being a manipulative witness if he felt it might improve his position. The judge's conclusion was that there was a moderate risk of suicide in the context of the threat of extradition. When confronted with a stressful situation, the appellant had developed a coping mechanism of reacting badly and in a way that potentially put him at risk of suicide. However, in custody steps would be taken to ensure his safety:
"If he were able to realise that there is nothing he can do to alleviate the stressful situation by self harm or suicide then there is every reason to believe that he will consciously or subconsciously return to a state of equilibrium. I find that steps can be taken to protect him from suicide if held in custody and it would not be oppressive in such circumstances to order extradition.
The [appellant] has not succeeded in establishing that it would be oppressive by reason of his mental health to order his extradition."
The judge then went on to consider whether the Lithuanian authorities were able to provide a safe custodial environment for the appellant given his particular mental health needs. He said that schizophrenia was well understood in Lithuania and that the treatment he would receive in prison there would likely be the same or similar to that in this country, ie antipsychotic injections every two weeks. The judge accepted that the family support he would receive would not be the same. However, the appellant was likely to respond well to treatment. Once in Lithuania he would realise that resistance to extradition would be futile. The prospect of a new trial would be stressful, but provided the prison authorities were aware of his potential for harming himself, appropriate steps could be taken to protect him. There was nothing about his condition that would suggest that he might be in any need of acute psychiatric care.
The appellant's first ground of appeal is that his extradition would be oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 by virtue of his mental state. On his behalf, Ms Hill submits that the judge was wrong to draw inferences that the appellant's account of self-harm and suicide ideation were to be disregarded since he did not hear the appellant give evidence. Moreover, the issue as to the appellant's credibility had not been raised with her at the hearing and there was no opportunity to comment. Had she been given the opportunity, she would have submitted on the appellant's behalf that his account of incidents in Lithuania were just as properly explicable on account of his schizophrenia as they were deliberate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minister for Justice and Equality v I. S
...in cases based upon an alleged risk of suicide. 146 The Court was referred to Valintelis v. Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania [2014] EWHC 1527 (Admin), [2014] All E.R. (D) 149, in which the respondent judicial authority sought the appellant Lithuanian national's extradition pursuant to......