Evaldas Urbonas v The Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania
[2024] EWHC 33 (Admin)
Mantas Barkauskas v Prosecutors General of the Republic of Lithuania
6 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2815 (Admin)
High Court
A man is fighting extradition to Lithuania. He says the paperwork wasn't clear enough and Lithuanian prisons are too dangerous. The court said the paperwork was fine but the danger wasn't serious enough to stop the extradition, as Lithuania is trying to improve its prisons. One part of the case is waiting for another court case to finish first.
Key Facts
- •Mantas Barkauskas appeals his extradition to Lithuania on grounds of insufficient particulars and violation of Article 3 ECHR (inter-prisoner violence).
- •The extradition warrant concerns three offences: trafficking in human beings (two counts) and organising or controlling prostitution.
- •The appellant was arrested on 25 April 2023 and remanded in custody.
- •Saini J previously refused permission to appeal except on the Article 3 ECHR ground, which was later dropped and then re-raised.
- •The Supreme Court's pending decision in El-Khouri v USA may impact the appeal's s.10 ground (extradition offences and dual criminality).
- •The Court considers the CPT 2024 report and Lithuanian Government's response regarding prison conditions in Lithuania.
Legal Principles
Particulars in an extradition warrant must be sufficiently accurate to inform the requested person of the offence and allegations against them, avoiding vagueness or ambiguity.
Dhar v Netherlands [2012] EWHC 679 (Admin), Von der Pahlen v Government of Austria [2006] EWHC 1672 (Admin), Biri v Hungary [2018] EWHC 50 (Admin), Blanchard v Spain [2021] EWHC 1776 (Admin)
Extradition must comply with Article 3 ECHR, prohibiting torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. If the risk of harm is from other prisoners, the requesting state must provide reasonable protection.
Urbonas v Lithuania [2024] EWHC 33 (Admin)
Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires particulars of the circumstances of the alleged offence, including conduct, time, place, and relevant legal provision.
Extradition Act 2003, s.2(4)(c)
Outcomes
Appeal on the ground of insufficient particulars (s.2(4)(c) Extradition Act 2003) dismissed.
The Court found the extradition warrant provided sufficient particulars, enabling the appellant to understand the case against him and to raise any bars to extradition.
Permission to amend the grounds of appeal to reinstate the Article 3 ECHR ground refused.
The Court found the appellant's argument on Article 3 not reasonably arguable, given the Lithuanian government's acknowledged efforts to improve prison conditions, despite acknowledging ongoing challenges.
Appeal on the s.10 ground (extradition offences and dual criminality) adjourned pending the Supreme Court's decision in El-Khouri v USA.
The appellant's counsel had a conflict of interest preventing him from arguing the stay; the Court did not make a decision on the stay itself.