MJELR -v- Busjeva, [2007] IEHC 341 (2007)

Docket Number:2006 73 EXT
Party Name:MJELR, Busjeva
Judge:Peart J.

Neutral Citation Number: [2007] IEHC 341THE HIGH COURT Record Number: 2006 NO. 73 Ext.Between:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law ReformApplicantAndDalia Onute BusjevaRespondent Judgment of Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered on the 27th day of March 2007:The surrender of the respondent is sought by the judicial authority in Lithuania so that she may face prosecution in respect of 22 offences set forth in the European arrest Warrant issued herein on the 21st July 2005. This warrant was duly endorsed by the High Court for execution on the 11th July 2006, and she was arrested on foot of same, and brought before the High Court, as required, on the 16th August 2006 in order to await the hearing of the present application for her surrender.I am satisfied from the affidavit evidence of the arresting officer, Sgt. Thomas Malone sworn herein that the person who has been arrested and brought before the Court is one and the same person as that in respect of whom this warrant has been issued.As to correspondence of offences, twenty one of the twenty two offences set forth in the warrant are offences of fraud, and as such are offences referred to in Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision and in respect of which double criminality does not need verification. The remaining offence (No. 1 in the warrant) is described therein as negligent accounting in connection with a business. I am satisfied that if the acts alleged to have been committed by the respondent in that regard had been committed in this jurisdiction, an offence under s. 202 of the Companies Act, 1990 would be committed.No issue has been raised in Points of Objection relating to either identity or correspondence.Section 45 of the Act does not apply. I am satisfied also that there is no reason under sections 21A, 22, 23, or 24 of the Act why surrender should not be ordered, and, subject to dealing with the only Point of Objection being now put forward by the respondent, I am satisfied that there is no reason why surrender is prohibited under Part III of the Act or the Framework Decision itself.The Point of Objection put forward by the respondent is that conditions of detention and imprisonment are so sub-standard in Lithuania that to order her surrender to face incarceration there pending her prosecution or imprisonment thereafter, if convicted, would amount to a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that they are inhuman and degrading. Torture is not put forward as a reason under Article 3 of the Convention.The respondent has sworn an affidavit in which she refers her arrival in this country in August 2002 and to her various residences here thereafter and her employment here. She refers also to the fact that in 2001 in Lithuania she was injured seriously in a car accident, and to the fact that she suffers from depression. She has exhibited some medical evidence in relation to depression here. This illness is not itself said to be a ground relied on for refusal of surrender, but it is put forward by way of general background feeding into the ground alleged to justify refusal, namely the prison conditions in Lithuania which she says pose a significant risk that her human rights will be breached if surrendered.She states that if returned, she will be detained in "Marijampole" which is the town where she resided prior to her arrival in this country. One of the prisons in Lithuania is the Marijampole Correction Centre, and in support...

To continue reading