Extradition appeal dismissed in Lithuanian fraud case

Background

On 26 January 2024, District Judge Tempia at Westminster Magistrates' Court ordered the extradition of Gytis Jonas Dambrauskas to Lithuania. This was pursuant to a warrant issued by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania, relating to allegations of conspiracy to defraud Lithuanian banks by obtaining loans totalling €70,800 using fraudulent income information.

The applicant, Mr. Dambrauskas, sought permission to appeal the extradition order, arguing that his extradition was barred by s.12A of the Extradition Act 2003 due to the absence of a prosecutorial decision, and that it would violate his Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Arguments and Evidence

Mr. Dambrauskas, who moved to the UK in 2020 for construction work, argued that extradition would severely impact his family life. His wife and two young children reside in the UK, and he asserted that his extradition would leave his family without financial support. His wife, Brigita Dambrauskieni, corroborated this, highlighting the close relationship between Mr. Dambrauskas and their children.

The applicant admitted to having prior convictions in the Netherlands and Germany but denied fleeing Lithuania to avoid prosecution. The court also heard from a psychologist who noted the potential impact on the family, particularly on Mrs. Dambrauskieni's mental health.

District Judge's Decision

Judge Tempia found the warrant valid and the offences extradition-eligible under s.10 of the Act. The judge dismissed the s.12A argument, noting the applicant failed to prove that Lithuanian authorities had not made a prosecutorial decision due to his absence.

In considering the Article 8 claim, the judge found that extradition would not disproportionately interfere with the applicant's rights. The judge noted inconsistencies in the applicant's account of his support network and accepted Home Office evidence regarding his entry into the UK.

The Appeal

The appeal focused on an Article 3 challenge concerning Lithuanian prison conditions, citing reports from the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The applicant's counsel, David Ball, argued that previous assurances regarding remand conditions did not extend to post-conviction conditions.

However, the High Court, led by Mr. Justice Pepperall, noted that the Divisional Court had previously accepted Lithuanian assurances regarding prison conditions. The court found no new evidence to suggest systemic failings that would breach Article 3.

High Court Ruling

The High Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the applicant's arguments were not reasonably arguable. The court upheld the extradition order, finding no substantial grounds to believe that Mr. Dambrauskas would face inhuman or degrading treatment in Lithuanian prisons.

The court emphasised the presumption of compliance with Article 3 obligations by Lithuania, a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant's appeal was deemed not reasonably arguable, and permission to appeal was refused.

Learn More

For more information on extradition law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Extradition Law.