Janovic v Prosecutor General's Office Lithuania

Janovic v Prosecutor General's Office Lithuania

The order for extradition was quashed because, in the special circumstances of this case, the passage of time since the alleged offence, compounded by the transfer of the case from Belarus to Lithuania and the resulting prejudice to the appellant’s ability to defend himself, made it unjust to extradite him under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003. The high thresholds for resisting extradition on Article 3 and 6 ECHR grounds were not met, nor was there an abuse of process or failure to meet the extradition offence requirement.

Parties
Appellant: Ivan Janovic; Respondent: Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Order
Outcome
appeal allowed; extradition order quashed
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Abuse of Process, Article 3 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Passage of Time, Prison Conditions, Dual Criminality
Extradition Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law European Arrest Warrant Abuse of Process Article 3 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Passage of Time +2 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Janovic

Appellant

Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to Lithuania for an offence committed in Belarus is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the extradition offence requirement under section 64(5) Extradition Act 2003 is met
  3. 3 Whether extradition would breach Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) or Article 6 (fair trial) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The order for extradition was quashed because, in the special circumstances of this case, the passage of time since the alleged offence, compounded by the transfer of the case from Belarus to Lithuania and the resulting prejudice to the appellant’s ability to defend himself, made it unjust to extradite him under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003. The high thresholds for resisting extradition on Article 3 and 6 ECHR grounds were not met, nor was there an abuse of process or failure to meet the extradition offence requirement.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; extradition order quashed

Orders

  • Order for extradition quashed
  • Appellant discharged