Minister for Justice and Equality -v- Lisauskas [2017] IECA 267 (20 October 2017)

Minister for Justice and Equality -v- Lisauskas [2017] IECA 267 (20 October 2017)

The Prosecutor General of Lithuania is a judicial authority within the meaning of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and the 2002 Framework Decision, as he is independent from the executive and participates in the administration of justice; the High Court was entitled to rely on the presumption of validity, and the appellant failed to rebut it with cogent evidence.

Citation
[2017] IECA 267
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Minister for Justice and Equality; Defendant/appellant: Tomas Lisauskas
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Judicial Authority Definition, Mutual Recognition, Prosecutor's Role in Extradition
Extradition Law Criminal Law EU Law European Arrest Warrant Judicial Authority Definition Mutual Recognition Prosecutor's Role in Extradition

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister for Justice and Equality

Plaintiff/respondent

Tomas Lisauskas

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prosecutor General of Lithuania qualifies as a 'judicial authority' under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (as amended) and the 2002 Council Framework Decision
  2. 2 Whether the High Court can rely on a presumption that the issuing authority is valid
  3. 3 What is the correct test for determining a valid issuing judicial authority

Ratio Decidendi

The Prosecutor General of Lithuania is a judicial authority within the meaning of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and the 2002 Framework Decision, as he is independent from the executive and participates in the administration of justice; the High Court was entitled to rely on the presumption of validity, and the appellant failed to rebut it with cogent evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.