Mantas Barkauskas v Prosecutors General of the Republic of Lithuania
[2024] EWHC 2815 (Admin)
Evaldas Urbonas v The Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania
12 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 33 (Admin)
High Court
Three people fought extradition to Lithuania because of fears of violence in Lithuanian prisons. A report showed ongoing problems, but Lithuania had a plan to improve things. The court decided the improvements were enough, so the extraditions could go ahead.
Key Facts
- •Three appeals against extradition to Lithuania based on Article 3 ECHR (risk of ill-treatment in Lithuanian prisons).
- •Appellants rely on the 2023 CPT Report highlighting persistent inter-prisoner violence in Lithuanian prisons.
- •The 2023 CPT Report was not considered by the Magistrates' Court in two of the cases and only considered after the decision in the third case.
- •Appellants allege systemic failings in the Lithuanian prison system, specifically regarding inter-prisoner violence and lack of protection for vulnerable prisoners.
- •Lithuanian authorities provided responses detailing measures taken to address the issues raised in the CPT report.
Legal Principles
Extradition may not be ordered if incompatible with Convention rights (Article 3 ECHR).
Extradition Act 2003, sections 21 and 21A
Article 3 ECHR prohibits removal to a country where there's a real risk of ill-treatment; ill-treatment must reach a minimum level of severity and, if by non-state actors, the state must fail to provide reasonable protection.
R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 38; Lord Advocate v Dean [2017] UKSC 44; Bazys and Besan v The Vilnius County Court [2022] EWHC 1094 (Admin)
Presumption of compliance with Article 3 for signatory states; rebutted by clear, cogent, and compelling evidence of systemic failings.
R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 38; Lord Advocate v Dean [2017] UKSC 44; Bazys and Besan v The Vilnius County Court [2022] EWHC 1094 (Admin)
CPT reports are considered objective, reliable, and specific evidence.
Bartulis v Panevezys Regional Court (Lithuania) [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin); R (AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42
Duty of candour on the requesting state and CPS to disclose evidence undermining their case.
R (Gambrah) v CPS [2013] EWHC 4126 (Admin); Bartulis v Panevezys Regional Court (Lithuania) [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The Court found that the presumption of Lithuania's compliance with Article 3 had not been rebutted. While acknowledging the persistent problem of inter-prisoner violence, the Court noted the Lithuanian authorities' recognition of the problem and their efforts to address it through various measures, including improved staff-prisoner ratios, training programs, and measures to protect vulnerable prisoners.
Similar Cases
Victoria Stumbre v Prosecutor General’s Office (Lithuania)(No.2)
[2023] EWHC 556 (Admin)
Arkadiusz Krampa v Regional Court in Gdansk (Poland)
[2023] EWHC 1587 (Admin)
Vjaceslavs Vascenkovs v Prosecutor General’s Office, Republic of Latvia
[2023] EWHC 2830 (Admin)
Marian Gurau v Suceava District Court, Romania
[2024] EWHC 1924 (Admin)