[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Kaupaitis v Prosecutor General, Republic of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1745 (Admin) (22 June 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1745.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 1745 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		22nd June 2006

1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 by the appellant, who is Lithuanian, against a decision of the Bow Street Magistrates' Court dated 27th April 2006 ordering the defendant's extradition to Lithuania in pursuance of an European arrest warrant. The appellant had sought to persuade the court that he should not be extradited, essentially by reason of the passage of time, on the basis that the passage of time had resulted in prejudice to him which could be said to be unjust and oppressive.
2. The events about which the requesting government make complaint took place in 1997 and 1998, and the appellant was originally arrested and investigated in 1999. He left Lithuania in 2000 and was eventually traced to this country where he was arrested pursuant to the warrant in question. The passage of time, accordingly, which is said to give rise to injustice and/or oppression is the period of six years, essentially from the date of his original arrest until the date that he was finally arrested in this country.
3. The allegations against him are of fraud. Part of the case against him is that he is alleged to have obtained money from would be students wishing to come to this country to take academic courses. He was said to have taken advance fees for the course and for travel to this country but not provided the services that he was promising. This was merely an example of his fraudulent activity.
4. He says that he never acted fraudulently and, in particular, he wished through his solicitor to be able to establish from LITE College, which he says was the institution to which the students were to go, that arrangements had indeed been made for the students to attend. In order to be able to put before the court information as to the extent to which there was any documentation still available to enable him to establish that defence on the one hand, and partly on the other in order to try to persuade the Lithuanian authorities, if he could, that there was nothing in the allegations because indeed the arrangements had been made for the students, he wished a Mr Le Blanc who was, at the time, either the proprietor or otherwise concerned with the management of LITE College to attend to give evidence and/or to produce such documents as he had for the relevant period. The court, on two separate occasions, refused the appellant's solicitor's application for a witness summons, and on two separate occasions this court was asked to consider those refusals.
5. On the first occasion, Black J indicated that the application should be renewed, and hence the second application. As far as the second application was concerned, it having been refused on the grounds that there had been no change of circumstances since the first, Collins J was asked to consider the matter; and he said that it should properly be dealt with on appeal after the ultimate decision had been taken in relation to extradition. This is the appeal which resulted from the order for extradition.
6. The difficulty which Mr Fidler on behalf of the appellant accepts is that the mere refusal to issue a witness summons cannot found any of the bases upon which this court, in its appellate jurisdiction under the Extradition Act, could allow the appellant's appeal. That is, at the moment, as far as he could get, he accepts, because unless and until he has the material from Mr Le Blanc he is not in a position to put forward full and proper argument in relation to the question arising under his claim that the passage of time has resulted in either injustice or oppression. Accordingly, it is essentially the judicial review application in relation to the refusal to issue the witness summons which is the matter which would appear for the moment to give the appellant the most likely procedural route to relief from this court.
7. It follows, at the moment, that the matter before us which is the appeal will not be of use to him in that particular regard. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the only way to ensure that this appellant can have all the available relief that he seeks if he makes out his case is to give him permission to renew out of time Collins J's refusal of on 17th March 2006 to allow judicial review of the decision of the 9th March. That application for permission should be heard together with the appeal, but both are adjourned to a date as soon as possible between now and 14th July. If permission is granted in the application for judicial review then the substantive application will follow, as I have said, to be heard together with the appeal.
8. The court formally has also to extend the time limits under the Extradition Act for disposal to 14th July and accordingly does so.
9. MR JUSTICE MCCOMBE: I agree.
10. MR FIDLER: Thank you very much, my Lords.
11. MISS EZEKIEL: My Lord, if the judgment is to be of assistance, if it is not your Lordships who hear it, there are three matters which are quite important which have perhaps mistakenly been left out of the judgment. The first significant matter is the warrant itself does not allege anything to do with LITE College. Your Lordship in summary suggested that the allegation is that they had not been provided courses at LITE College. LITE College has come from Mr Kaupaitis, so that is not part of the allegation. The second matter is, he is not only charged with fraud but he is also charged with obtaining plane tickets without paying for them. That is part of the fault. It is not merely defrauding the students. There is also the dual criminality offence which is obtaining his pecuniary grant, which has nothing to do with in fact the students. It has to do with his conduct of the company.
12. My Lord, of those, the most significant is the suggestion that the Lithuanians alleged LITE College was a party at all to any of the transactions.
13. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: I will make sure that is reorganised.
14. MR FIDLER: Thank you very much, my Lord.
15. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: We will leave it at that for the moment.