Minister for Justice v Balciunas

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 06 February 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 34
• Date: 06 February 2007
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record Number: No. 156 Ext./2006

[2007] IEHC 34

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: No. 156 Ext./2006

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BALCIUNAS

Between:

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant

and

Edvinas Balciunas

Respondent

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BALCIUNAS: 2007 IEHC 34; 2007 1 ILRM 516

CRIMINAL LAW

Extradition

European arrest warrant - Text of warrant - Lithuania - Whether ambiguity - Whether presumption rebutted - Whether evidence of lawyer required - LG v Minister for Justice [2005] IEHC 310 (Unrep, Peart J, 7/10/2005) not followed; Minister for Justice v Butenas [2006] IEHC 378 (Unrep, Peart J , 24/11/2006) followed - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), s 21A - Surrender ordered (2006/156Ext - Peart J - 6/2/2007) [2007] IEHC 34

Minister for Justice v Balciunas

Facts: The surrender of the respondent was sought by the Lithuanian authority on foot of a European arrest warrant “for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution”. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that his surrender should be refused on the basis that it was unclear from the warrant that a decision had been made to prosecute the respondent for the offence and that his surrender in all likelihood, from what appeared in the warrant, was being sought so that investigations into the alleged offence could be continued. The respondent relied on the decision of the High Court in the case of LG v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Unreported, 7 October 2005 and submitted that the court could not be certain that the provisions of section 21A of the 2003 Act had been complied with.

Held by Peart J. in ordering the surrender of the respondent: That in order to rebut the presumption that a decision had been made to prosecute the respondent, the court would require evidence from a Lithuanian lawyer regarding the procedures in that State and specifically proving that at the stage the warrant issued, as a matter of Lithuanian law no decision had been taken to prosecute the respondent. There was no such evidence before the court in this case.

Reporter: L.O’S.

Judgment of

Mr Justice Michael Peart

1 The surrender of the respondent is sought by the Lithuanian authority on foot of a European arrest warrant which issued there on the 8th August 2006. It was endorsed for execution by order of the High Court on the 21st November 2006, and the respondent was duly arrested on foot of same on the 6th December 2006, and brought before the High Court on the same day pursuant to the requirements of s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act,2003, as amended, when he was remanded from time to time until the present application for an order of surrender was made.

2 There is no issue raised as to the identity of the respondent, and it is not contested that he is one and the same person in respect of whom the European arrest warrant has been issued. Neither is any issue raised as to correspondence. The offence in the warrant is in any event one of those offences referred to in Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision and in respect of which double criminality does not need to be verified. The minimum gravity requirement is also met.

3 Very fairly, Patrick McCarthy SC has indicated to the Court that only one issue is raised against the making of the order sought, and it is one arising under s. 21A of the Act and the Framework Decision, namely that it is unclear from the European arrest warrant that a decision has been made to prosecute the respondent for the offence and that his surrender in all likelihood, from what appears in the warrant, is being sought so that investigations into the alleged offence...