AB v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania

AB v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania

Electronic monitoring remains necessary and proportionate in this case to ensure the applicant's attendance and prevent absconding, given the critical stage of extradition proceedings, the seriousness of the alleged offences, and the lack of sufficient evidence that the anklet precludes employment. The proposed alternative of doorstep monitoring would substantially weaken the bail package and is not justified.

Parties
Applicant: AB; Respondent: Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Extradition Bail Variation Application / Application for Variation of Bail Conditions in Extradition Proceedings
Outcome
Application for variation of bail conditions refused
Legal Topics
Bail Conditions, Electronic Monitoring, Variation of Bail, Proportionality, Article 8 ECHR
Criminal Law Extradition Law Bail Conditions Electronic Monitoring Variation of Bail Proportionality Article 8 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Bail Variation Application / Application for Variation of Bail Conditions in Extradition Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether electronic monitoring as a bail condition remains necessary and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's circumstances justify removal of electronic monitoring in favour of doorstep checks

Ratio Decidendi

Electronic monitoring remains necessary and proportionate in this case to ensure the applicant's attendance and prevent absconding, given the critical stage of extradition proceedings, the seriousness of the alleged offences, and the lack of sufficient evidence that the anklet precludes employment. The proposed alternative of doorstep monitoring would substantially weaken the bail package and is not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for variation of bail conditions refused

Orders

  • Electronic monitoring component of the curfew to remain in place
  • No variation to bail conditions granted