[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 >> Semionovas v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania [2013] EWHC 445 (Admin) (20 February 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/445.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 445 (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
		20 February 2013

1. MR JUSTICE FOSKETT: The extradition of the appellant is sought pursuant to an accusation European Arrest Warrant issued by the Prosecutor General's Office in the Republic of Lithuania on 16 April 2012. The warrant was certified by SOCA on 6 May 2012. There was a contested extradition hearing on 22 November 2012 at which the sole point taken was that the warrant failed to comply with the requirements of section 2(4)(c) of the Act. District Judge Evans handed down a written judgment on 4 December rejecting this contention and ordering the appellant's extradition. The basis of the contention that the warrant failed to comply with the statutory requirements is that it specifies in box (e) of the warrant that it relates in total to one offence, whereas in fact, when the contents of that box are examined, it refers to two offences.
2. The date of the alleged offences was 3 June 2006 when, with two other unidentified persons, the appellant was involved in the robbery of someone by taking his mobile phone and charger and car radio. The allegation is that the victim had been driving his car and was hit at least seven times, suffering bruises to his body, and the specific allegation against the appellant is that he intentionally broke both headlights, the front windscreen, the window glass of both front doors and also dented the bonnet, the front near side door and the rear off side door. As I have said, the warrant suggested that one offence was committed but, in fact, not only does it relate to two offences but they are identified specifically as robbery, pursuant to Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, and destruction of or damage to property, contrary Article 187.
3. The argument advanced by Ms Mary Westcott before the District Judge, and repeated before me, is that the warrant should have said that it related to two offences. Expressed thus, it is clear, how unattractive is the proposition. A fair degree of detail is given in the warrant of the circumstances, as my recitation of the background indicates, and the appellant can have no doubt at all about the substance of the case he has to meet on his return to Poland, if that occurs. The District Judge gave as his first reason for rejecting this submission the fact that Article 11.2 and Article 12.2 of the Polish Penal Code could be said to have rescued this position, although not referred to specifically in the warrant.
4. Mr James Stansfeld, on behalf of the respondent judicial authority, does not seek to uphold the decision on that basis. He accepts that, if an EAW fails to contain the particulars required under section 2(4) of the Act, the EAW will not be a Part 1 warrant. As he says, there is extensive authority on the interpretation of section 2 and the sufficiency of particulars pursuant to section 2(4)(c) of the Act. I have been reminded of a good number of those authorities in the helpful skeleton arguments that I have received, including reference to my own decision in the case of Skrzypczak v The Circuit Court in Poznan, Poland, where I concluded that there was no doubt in the appellant's mind in that case about what he faced upon his return.
5. It does not seem to me that any detailed consideration needs to be given to the authorities. I am firmly of the view that this warrant spells out entirely clearly and unambiguously what it is that the appellant faces upon his return. Whether one offence or two offences represents a typing error or not, one simply does not know but the substance of the case against him is absolutely clear. So the second ground for rejecting the appellant's complaint about the warrant relied upon by the District Judge is one I accept. I respectfully agree with him on that point. All other matters that at one stage had been foreshadowed as matters undermining the warrant have been abandoned and the one remaining point is the one that I have dealt with and in my view there is no substance in it.
6. On that basis, the appeal is dismissed.
7. Thank you very much.