Judicial Court of Lithuania, R (on the application of) v Dumbliauskas

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an appeal by the Lithuanian prosecutor against the decision of District Judge Purdy to grant bail to the respondent pending the hearing of the extradition proceedings. The conditions included residence, geographical restriction, electronic tagging, security, reporting and control of travel documents.

The respondent faces extradition on a warrant which alleges an overarching conspiracy and a number of sub-plots in relation to grave offences concerning the importation of guns and ammunition into the United Kingdom. The maximum sentence is 20 years for some of them and for others, life. Plainly, if convicted, a substantial prison sentence of many years is very likely given the scale of the gun trafficking.

Dumliauskas, the respondent, had pleaded guilty at Snaresbrook Crown Court, before a retrial, to three counts on an indictment of possessing firearms and cartridges of the same sort described in the European Arrest Warrant as the subject of the conspiracy. He was arrested on those charges on 21 October 2006 and remained in custody until the conclusion of the sentence of 66 months which he received from Snaresbrook Crown Court. He was then released on licence. He remained on licence until he was arrested recently pursuant to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant.

He had been acquitted at half time at Snaresbrook crown Court of a conspiracy to possess hand guns, silencers and ammunition with intent to enable another person or persons to endanger life. This conspiracy was alleged to have occurred between 13 April and 24 October 2006. When arrested for the European Arrest Warrant Mr Dumliauskas said that he had already been dealt with for the offences in question.

The bail appeal was adjourned so that inquiries could be made as to the events at Snaresbrook Crown Court to which I have referred. It was also adjourned so that I could be clear as to what the understanding of the Lithuanian authorities was as to Mr Dumliauskas' whereabouts during the period of the conspiracy and plot, and indeed whether they were aware that he had in fact been in custody in the United Kingdom for part of the period covered by the extradition conspiracy. The overarching extradition conspiracy is said to begin no later than before December 2006 and to go on to December 2007, and specific shipments are referred to in September 2006 and November 2007, during most of which he was in custody.

It is clear from the European Arrest Warrant and from the subsequent letter from the Lithuanian judicial authorities that it is their contention that he was participating in the conspiracy after he had gone into custody in the United Kingdom, and was communicating with accomplices by phone and during meetings in prison. The importance of the analysis and the reason why I called for inquiries to be made was that I wanted to see whether there was a strong possibility available to the respondent of either knocking out the European Arrest Warrant by a defence of double jeopardy, or a strong prospect of providing a defence to the charges, if returned, which the Lithuanian authorities had simply not grasped.

I am satisfied that no such knockout blow could be thought by Mr Dumliauskas to be available to him in the light of those circumstances. It is of course not for me to judge what the prospects would be in relation to the European Arrest Warrant and Mr Cooper, appearing for him today, indicated that there may be points which may lead to the European Arrest Warrant being discharged. Accordingly I approached the question of bail pending the decision of the District Judge on the basis of there being arguments to be heard, one way or the other, in relation to a number of factors, but what at first blush might appear to be very significant points in favour of the respondent no longer appear to have that degree of significance. Whether they tell in the end is not a matter of me, but for the time being I am satisfied that Mr Dumliauskas would in the interim approach the question of what he had done aware that he faced a real risk, until the District Judge decided otherwise, of facing extradition on very serious offences likely to carry a very long sentence if convicted.

What is said against that is that the court cannot conclude that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would abscond. One matter I deal with straight away is that Mr Dumliauskas is blind. He, it is said, came to this country for treatment, but it might more seriously be said that he came to this country to traffic guns. It is said he needs annual treatment from Moorfield's. I accept that Mr Dumliauskas is blind but it is perfectly clear, if only from the plea of guilty to serious gun offences at Snaresbrook and the sentence which followed the plea of guilty, that his blindness has not prevented him from engaging in very serious criminal acts.

Given the allegations I do not regard his blindness as having any serious impact on a desire or intention to abscond. There are two points that are made. The first is that he has complied -- and I shall accept what I am told for the time being -- with the terms of his licence, but until he was arrested he had no reason to do otherwise. The most difficult point is this: he has a very young child as well as a teenage child in this country, along with his Lithuanian wife and both his parents also live in this country, not far from where he does. The question is whether their presence and the bail conditions which the District Judge proposed or any possible tightening which I might consider, would be satisfactory if there were otherwise substantial grounds for believing that he would abscond.

For my part I am satisfied that substantial grounds do exist for concluding that he would abscond. These are very serious offences. They include allegations that he was committing offences from within prison. They relate to the transport of guns, that is to say smuggling guns and ammunition across international borders deceitfully, and that he has friends abroad able to assist, and possibly indeed in the United Kingdom.

I therefore have to ask myself whether the family circumstances and the conditions would be sufficient to remove those substantial grounds. I consider family ties significant, but I regret that I do not consider that they are sufficient here. This is a man who has been quite prepared to undertake serious criminal activity knowing the risk of a serious prison sentence, notwithstanding the wife and child and the impact that it would inevitably have on him. Whether by himself or eventually with them, I am satisfied that their presence in this country does not remove the substantial grounds I otherwise have for believing that he would abscond. I do not think that the other conditions are sufficient to prevent the absconding of a man who clearly is a significant criminal.

Accordingly I allow this appeal. The bail is refused.