[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 >> Skruodys v Siauliai City District Court Lithuania [2007] EWHC 1192 (Admin) (03 May 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/1192.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 1192 (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
		3rd May 2007

1. MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY: This is an appeal pursued by Mr Skroudys, a Lithuanian, under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order by Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham of 26th March 2007, during uncontested extradition proceedings.
2. The relevant familiar legislation need not be rehearsed. On 5th June 2006, the Siauliai City District Court issued a warrant for his arrest and the Prosecutor General days later issued an European Arrest Warrant. The alleged offence is of misappropriation in 2001 of property of a considerable value. A warrant was certified by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency on 21st September 2006 and on 6th March 2007 Mr Skruodys was arrested.
3. He has been on conditional bail throughout and his single point made to this court is that he has no fear on the merits of putting his case. Indeed, he seeks voluntarily to return to Lithuania so as to defend himself. He is unable so to do because, as a condition of his bail, all his international travel documents have been surrendered so that he has no passport with which to effect his return. He seeks restoration of his passport so that he may return to Lithuania without the opprobrium of an European Arrest Warrant attaching to his name.
4. Sadly, this court has no power to help him. Section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 gives but one option: allow or dismiss his appeal. No matter any sympathy for his desire to go back voluntarily to face the music, this court is, as far as I can see, powerless to do other than dismiss his appeal. I am driven to that conclusion since, as Mr Skruodys candidly concedes, there is before us nothing to found an appeal.
5. For those reasons I would reject the application.
6. LORD JUSTICE GAGE: I agree.
7. Well, there we are Mr Skruodys. Thank you very much for coming along and thank you Ms Cumberland for your help.
8. MS CUMBERLAND: Thank you, my Lord. I do not know whether it would be convenient to deal with the question of certification. Perhaps in the circumstances it is not necessary.
9. LORD JUSTICE GAGE: Does the court normally make a certification? I think we just dismiss the appeal, do we not?
10. MS CUMBERLAND: If there were any question of the appellant attempting to further pursue the appeal, perhaps you could simply say that no point of public law arises and that is in section 37 of the Act before your Lordship and your Ladyship -- I apologise, section 32(4) of the 2003 Act:

"Leave to appeal under this section must not be granted unless-

(a) the High Court has certified that there is a point of law of general public importance involved in the decision."

And I would simply invite the court to decide there is no point of general public importance involved. (Pause)

11. LORD JUSTICE GAGE: I do not think we need do that. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you.