[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 >> Dikmonas, R (on the application of) v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania [2010] EWHC 1222 (Admin) (18 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1222.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 1222 (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
		18th May 2010

1. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: This is an appeal under the Extradition Act against a decision of District Judge Evans to the effect that the appellant is to be extradited to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant. In essence the warrant explains that Mr Dikmonas was involved in what we would regard as an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in that he was involved in the purchase and distribution of amphetamines. That was said to occur in August 2004. There was apparently evidence of a telephone conversation that he had with an another party. It was said that he had something like 64 grams of amphetamine and that a sum of 7,000 Litas was involved. This was said to be contrary to Article 260 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code.
2. He was convicted by the Klaipeda District Court on 9th March 2006 and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. The warrant says that he was present at the hearing of the case. There was an appeal to the Klaipeda County Court on 22nd May 2006 in absentia. There was then a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Lithuania in early 2007 which quashed the ruling of the county court and returned the case for rehearing. The case was then reheard. The matter went up to the Supreme Court of Lithuania for a second time and again his attempted cassation failed. All but the original trial were conducted in the absence of Mr Dikmonas. He had come to this country and at some point in late last year he was arrested on the warrant.
3. The matter came before District Judge Evans. The claimant had been represented up until the hearing but counsel did not appear at the hearing itself. In this judgment the District Judge set out the background, as I have briefly outlined it. He explained that Mr Dikmonas had also made an application to the European Court of Human Rights. The judge then addressed the two issues that were raised, the first being a section 20 Extradition Act 2003 point that the defendant says he was not present at the trial and, secondly, the ECHR Article 5 and 6 points relating to the procedures in Lithuania.
4. In his judgment, the District Judge said that he heard evidence from the claimant's partner and his son. They both gave evidence that the claimant was in this country from his birthday on 5th December 2005. The son was fairly confident, but said he was not good at dates, that his father had been in the UK on 9th March 2006, in other words, the date of the trial in Lithuania. The District Judge observed that, notwithstanding the evidence that he had heard, he was entitled to act on the clear and unequivocal statement in the warrant that the claimant was present at the trial.
5. The District Judge then went on to consider Articles 5 and 6 in relation to proceedings in Lithuania. He observed that in due course the European Court of Human Rights will review what happened in Lithuania. It was not his task to undertake some sort of review. He was satisfied that Mr Dikmonas's extradition would be compatible with the Convention.
6. Before me, Mr Dikmonas appears unrepresented. It appears that he had been represented by solicitors who had asked to come off the record recently. There is a letter to the court which arrived possibly late yesterday afternoon or early this morning from another firm of solicitors. The firm who explains that, although they are not in funds and do not have legal aid, they had been contacted by Mr Dikmonas's son on Mr Dikmonas's behalf and asked to represent him. They have requested an adjournment.
7. The law relating to extradition appeals before this court is clear:

"26. Appeal against extradition order

(1) If the appropriate judge orders a person's extradition under this Part, the person may appeal to the High Court against the order.

(2) But subsection (1) does not apply if the order is made under section 46 or 48.

(3) An appeal under this section may be brought on a question of law or fact.

(4) Notice of an appeal under this section must be given in accordance with rules of court before the end of the permitted period, which is 7 days starting with the day on which the order is made.

27. Court's powers on appeal under section 26

(1) On an appeal under section 26 the High Court may—

(a) allow the appeal;

(b) dismiss the appeal.

(2) The court may allow the appeal only if the conditions in subsection (3) or the conditions in subsection (4) are satisfied.

(3) The conditions are that—

(a) the appropriate judge ought to have decided a question before him at the extradition hearing differently;

(b) if he had decided the question in the way he ought to have done, he would have been required to order the person's discharge.

(4) The conditions are that—

(a) an issue is raised that was not raised at the extradition hearing or evidence is available that was not available at the extradition hearing;

(b) the issue or evidence would have resulted in the appropriate judge deciding a question before him at the extradition hearing differently;

(c) if he had decided the question in that way, he would have been required to order the person's discharge.

(5) If the court allows the appeal it must—

(a) order the person's discharge;

(b) quash the order for his extradition."

8. The arguments Mr Dikmonas has put to me this morning are essentially those agitated before the District Judge. Firstly, Mr Dikmonas says that he did not receive a fair trial in Lithuania. He says that he was stitched up, that there was corruption amongst the police and that the evidence given by what I understood to be the main witness against him ought to have been discounted because that witness has mental health problems, which had been diagnosed by the experts. In addition, Mr Dikmonas pointed out that the telephone evidence was also suspect. There is no proof that the telephone conversations which led to his conviction were ever made. He protested his innocence, said that the incident in relation to the drugs had never happened and that he was never involved in crime. He also reasserts the point that he was not at the trial, although he concedes his solicitor was there.
9. Secondly, he contends that it would be wrong to extradite him to Lithuania. He has an application before the European Court of Human Rights at the present time. There was a recent letter produced to the court, dated 4th May 2010, which indicates that the European Court of Human Rights has added further documents to the claimant's case file. He submitted that he ought to be kept in custody in this country until the European Court has decided the matter. His partner/wife and son are here in this country. He has worked here. There will be consequential financial difficulties if he were to be extradited. He is not a bad person.
10. Thirdly, Mr Dikmonas also made general allegations of corruption, not only about the Lithuanian police but also about the judicial authorities. He did not have a fair trial. He was unfairly convicted. He wanted a retrial but any retrial would not be, as I understood him to submit, conducted fairly in accordance with the standards laid down in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
11. In my view, Mr Dikmonas' appeal to me is wholly without merit. That is because the way the system works pursuant to the arrangements for the European Arrest Warrant is that this country has undertaken to return people to other member states of the European Union under such warrants. Only limited exceptions apply. In this case, the warrant on its face is a valid warrant. The matter was heard by District Judge Evans, who considered the evidence in relation to the presence of the claimant at the original trial and came to the conclusion that the appellant was there. I can find no fault with that particular conclusion.
12. There were the allegations made about the unfairness of and/or corruption in the criminal justice system of Lithuania, but the legal authorities binding on me are quite clear that I have to approach the issue on the basis that, as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and as a member state of the European Union, Lithuania deserves mutual trust and co-operation from this country. Lithuania must be assumed to be capable of protecting Mr Dikmonas against any unjust trial, if there is to be a retrial. It must be assumed to have conducted the 2006 trial in a fair manner and also it must be assumed that, when Mr Dikmonas serves his sentence in Lithuania, he will not be subject to any ill treatment which would otherwise breach Article 3 of the Convention.
13. In all the circumstances, I cannot see that there is any basis for this appeal. Because I have found the appeal as wholly without merit, I also decline to agree to an adjournment.
14. So the upshot is that the execution of the warrant must proceed. Mr Dikmonas does have an appeal before the European Court of Human Rights where he has raised these issues about the proceedings in Lithuania and, inasmuch as there is any possible remedy open to him because of what has happened, it is in that particular venue that any possible remedy may lie, but otherwise I dismiss the appeal.