Valukonis v Minister of Justice, Republic of Lithuania

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Goldspring, made on 2 September 2014, that he should be extradited to Lithuania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Ministry of Justice on 17 December 2013 so that he should serve a total of some 1 year and 4 months' imprisonment. That is the remainder of a 4-year term of imprisonment imposed following the cancellation of his conditional release on 22 August 2013 in respect of 13 offences committed between 12 May 2009 and 28 September 2010. They consisted of four offences of robbery, one of attempted robbery, five of possession or supply of drugs, one of burglary, one of affray and one of criminal damage. He is obviously to be regarded as a serious offender.

The grounds of appeal that were lodged simply stated that his extradition was incompatible with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention and disproportionate to the public interest that extradition normally serves, taking into account the combination of circumstances which arise in this case.

The appellant has been represented under a legal aid order by Mr Atlee, who is experienced in dealing with immigration cases. He has carefully considered whether there are indeed, having regard to the law as set down by the Supreme Court in HH, grounds which could be relied on as at least arguable to establish that return would be disproportionate because of the effect on his Article 8 rights. He has been unable to find any such grounds, and indeed that was the conclusion reached by the district judge.

It is suggested that, in the circumstances, the claimant could be given an opportunity to appear in person and make an appeal. However, as I indicated earlier to Mr Atlee, it seems to me that since representation by competent persons is provided at public expense and full consideration is given to whether there are any arguable grounds, it would be quite unnecessary (indeed more than unnecessary, wrong) to require further costs to be expended in producing from custody such as the appellant, providing an interpreter and having a court hearing when one knows that there is nothing that could properly be put forward to ground an appeal against extradition.

In those circumstances, this appeal is dismissed.

Mr Atlee, you will get paid for today because your application to come off the record I have not accepted. You do not need any usual order nowadays, do you?

MR ATLEE: I do not think I need to take up your Lordship's time with asking for the usual order, so I am advised by others.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You get it anyway.

MR ATLEE: Yes, my Lord. I am obliged.