Kalinauskas v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania

Kalinauskas v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania

Extradition would be disproportionate because the appellant's conduct was not sufficiently serious, he had already served in excess of any sentence likely to be imposed, and further extradition would not be justified.

Parties
Appellant: Sarunas Kalinauskas; Respondent: Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed, extradition order quashed, appellant discharged
Legal Topics
Proportionality, European Arrest Warrant, Article 8 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Proportionality European Arrest Warrant Article 8 ECHR Article 3 ECHR Sentencing Guidelines

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarunas Kalinauskas

Appellant

Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition would be disproportionate under s.21A(1)(b) Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Assessment of seriousness of conduct
  3. 3 Appropriateness of custodial sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Extradition would be disproportionate because the appellant's conduct was not sufficiently serious, he had already served in excess of any sentence likely to be imposed, and further extradition would not be justified.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, extradition order quashed, appellant discharged

Orders

  • Order for extradition quashed
  • Appellant discharged pursuant to Section 27(5) Extradition Act 2003