Michailovas v The Republic Of Lithuania [2021] NIQB 60 (21 May 2021)

Michailovas v The Republic Of Lithuania [2021] NIQB 60 (21 May 2021)

The Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to permit amendment of the grounds of appeal, holding that the interests of justice and the need to avoid incompatibility with Article 3 ECHR required it. The appeal succeeded under Article 3 ECHR, but failed under sections 14, 21, 25 Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 ECHR. The court refused to certify any question of law of general public importance or grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, finding no such point arose.

Citation
[2021] NIQB 60
Parties
Appellant: Mr M; Respondent: Requesting State
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Application for Certification/leave to Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; amendment permitted; discharge ordered; certification and leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Grounds of Appeal, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Extradition Act 2003 Sections 14, 21, 25, 26, 27, 32, Leave to Appeal, Certification of Point of Law, Procedural Discretion, Remittal, New Evidence
Extradition Law Human Rights Law Amendment of Grounds of Appeal Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Extradition Act 2003 Sections 14, 21, 25, 26, 27, 32 Leave to Appeal Certification of Point of Law +3 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr M

Appellant

Requesting State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Application for Certification/leave to Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should permit amendment of grounds of appeal in extradition proceedings
  2. 2 Proper construction and application of section 27(4)(a) Extradition Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether Mr M's extradition would violate Article 3 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to permit amendment of the grounds of appeal, holding that the interests of justice and the need to avoid incompatibility with Article 3 ECHR required it. The appeal succeeded under Article 3 ECHR, but failed under sections 14, 21, 25 Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 ECHR. The court refused to certify any question of law of general public importance or grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, finding no such point arose.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; amendment permitted; discharge ordered; certification and leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Mr M's appeal under Article 3 ECHR allowed
  • Mr M's appeal under sections 14, 21, 25 Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 ECHR dismissed