[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 >> Basciulis v Prosecutor General Office of Vilnius Lithuania [2012] EWHC 2804 (Admin) (19 July 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2804.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 2804 (Admin)

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		19 July 2012

1. MR JUSTICE SAUNDERS: The appellant in this case is wanted on a European Arrest Warrant issued from the Prosecutor Generals Office in the Republic of Lithuania. There are two offences concerned. One is an offence of assault. The other is an offence of threatening to kill somebody with a knife.
2. There was an uncontested extradition hearing on 20 December 2011. Subsequent to that, solicitors acting on behalf of the appellant raised a ground of appeal that the European Arrest Warrant had not been issued by judicial authority; if I can call it colloquially, the Assange point. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court, that has been abandoned.
3. However, the appellant, at some stage, in a notice of appeal has also put forward the ground that, "It is not safe in Lithuanian prisons. I am afraid for my life." That ground was not raised before the district judge. As I say, it was an uncontested hearing.
4. The law is perfectly clear that unless there is a good reason for it, all matters to be relied on should be argued before the district judge and evidence called before the district judge. No satisfactory or justifiable reason has been put before the court for doing that.
5. In addition, there is simply no evidence of any sort to substantiate that ground. Accordingly, the appeal must fail.
6. There is, in this appellant's case, another extradition case which is subject to an appeal by the respondent. That is to be decided by the High Court in due course. Therefore, I am asked, and I do, to extend the time for the removal of the appellant pursuant to section 36(3)(b) of the Extradition Act. It will require a period to commence on the date upon which the decision of the High Court in that case becomes final. I approve the order in relation to the draft which has been put before me.

The appeal is dismissed.