Paredinis v Darius Valys, Prosecutor General, Lithuania

Paredinis v Darius Valys, Prosecutor General, Lithuania

The third offence alleged in the warrant is equivalent to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986; the offences are not so trivial as to render extradition disproportionate; extradition would not unjustly infringe Article 8 rights.

Parties
Appellant: Aidas Paredinis; Respondent: Darius Valys, Prosecutor General, Lithuania
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Equivalence of Offences, Oppression Due to Passage of Time, Article 8 ECHR
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law European Arrest Warrant Equivalence of Offences Oppression Due to Passage of Time 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aidas Paredinis

Appellant

Darius Valys, Prosecutor General, Lithuania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third offence has an equivalent in English law
  2. 2 Whether extradition would be oppressive or unjust due to passage of time
  3. 3 Whether extradition would infringe Article 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The third offence alleged in the warrant is equivalent to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986; the offences are not so trivial as to render extradition disproportionate; extradition would not unjustly infringe Article 8 rights.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • extradition order upheld