Statkevicius v Prosecutor General Office Lithuania

Statkevicius v Prosecutor General Office Lithuania

Extensions of time for hearing extradition appeals under section 31 of the Extradition Act 2003 may be granted more than once and retrospectively; section 31(6) does not operate automatically upon expiry of an extension if the court subsequently grants a further extension. The delay and circumstances in this case do not render the extradition unjust or oppressive, as the Lithuanian courts are capable of addressing any prejudice to the appellant's defence.

Parties
Appellant: Arturas Tomas Statkevicius; Respondent: Prosecutor General Office Lithuania
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Passage of Time, Oppression, Delay, European Arrest Warrant, Fair Trial, Section 14 Extradition Act 2003, Section 31 Extradition Act 2003
Extradition Criminal Law Passage of Time Oppression Delay European Arrest Warrant Fair Trial Section 14 Extradition Act 2003 +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arturas Tomas Statkevicius

Appellant

Prosecutor General Office Lithuania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 31(6) of the Extradition Act 2003 automatically quashes the extradition order due to expiry of extension period
  2. 2 Whether extradition is unjust or oppressive due to passage of time, delay, and prejudice to defence
  3. 3 Whether delay and discrepancies in information provided by Lithuanian authorities render extradition oppressive

Ratio Decidendi

Extensions of time for hearing extradition appeals under section 31 of the Extradition Act 2003 may be granted more than once and retrospectively; section 31(6) does not operate automatically upon expiry of an extension if the court subsequently grants a further extension. The delay and circumstances in this case do not render the extradition unjust or oppressive, as the Lithuanian courts are capable of addressing any prejudice to the appellant's defence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extradition order affirmed
  • No declaration under section 31(6) granted