Minister for Justice v Silko (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for the surrender of the Respondent to the Republic of Lithuania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") dated 6th May 2019. The EAW was issued by a judge of the Vilnius Regional Court seeking to enforce a custodial sentence of 3 years and 2 months imposed on the Respondent for 23 offences committed over multiple dates. The sentence was originally suspended but the suspension was revoked on 20th September 2018, activating the custodial sentence.

The High Court endorsed the EAW in January 2021 after a section 20 request for further information was made and responded to by the issuing authority. The Respondent was arrested in January 2022 and filed a Notice of Objection to surrender based on several grounds. Further section 20 requests and responses followed, providing detailed information about the offences and prison conditions in Lithuania. The Court was satisfied as to the identity of the Respondent and that no statutory bars to surrender arose under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent's surrender is prohibited under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 due to the Respondent not being present at a revocation hearing related to the custodial sentence.
2. Whether the offences specified in the EAW correspond to offences under Irish law, fulfilling the requirement of correspondence under the Act.
3. Whether prison conditions in Lithuania amount to a breach of the Respondent's rights under section 37(1)(c) of the Act and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, thus prohibiting surrender.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Respondent argued that surrender should be refused because the revocation hearing on 20th September 2018, which activated the custodial sentence, occurred in his absence and involved "administrative offences" the details of which were not disclosed, potentially violating procedural fairness under section 45 of the Act and constitutional and human rights provisions.
• The Respondent contended that the Minister must prove all matters necessary to justify surrender and that correspondence for two specific offences (offences 9 and 17) was not established because the descriptions did not show unlawful procurement of data.
• The Respondent claimed that prison conditions in Lithuania pose a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, relying on a 2020 United States Department of Justice report and a prior Northern Ireland High Court decision, thus prohibiting surrender under section 37(1)(c) of the Act.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Minister contended that the Respondent appeared at all hearings imposing the sentences, except the revocation hearing, and that the revocation decision was made on the basis of a probation report and failure to comply with probation conditions. The Minister submitted that the Respondent would have a right of appeal and retrial upon surrender, addressing any procedural concerns under section 45.
• Regarding correspondence, the Minister argued that offences 9 and 17 should be considered in the context of related offences forming a series of transactions, thereby establishing correspondence with offences under Irish law, specifically unlawful use of computer data contrary to the Criminal Justice (Offences Relating to Information Systems) Act 2017.
• The Minister relied on detailed information from the issuing authority and prior Irish High Court decisions to assert that prison conditions in Lithuania meet the required standards and that the presumption of compliance under section 4A of the Act has not been rebutted.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first addressed the section 45 issue concerning the revocation hearing held in the Respondent's absence. It found that the decision to revoke the suspension was based on probation violations and administrative offences, and that the Respondent would have a right to appeal and retrial on surrender. Therefore, no prohibition under section 45 arose.

On the issue of correspondence, the Court analyzed the offences alleged in the EAW and compared them to Irish statutory offences. For the two contested offences (9 and 17), the Court accepted the Minister's submission that these offences should be read in the context of related offences forming a series of transactions. This holistic approach, supported by established jurisprudence, allowed the Court to conclude that the factual conduct described would constitute offences under Irish law, specifically relating to unlawful use of computer data and deception statutes.

The Court further found correspondence for the remaining offences with Irish offences involving deception, unlawful use of computers, and accessing information systems without lawful authority, relying on the detailed descriptions provided and the Minister’s submissions.

Regarding prison conditions, the Court considered the Respondent’s evidence and prior case law. It found that the presumption of compliance with fundamental rights by the requesting state had not been rebutted. The Court was not satisfied that there was a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if the Respondent were surrendered.

Holding and Implications

The Court ORDERED THE SURRENDER of the Respondent to the Republic of Lithuania pursuant to section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

This decision directly affects the parties by authorizing the Respondent's extradition to Lithuania to serve the custodial sentence imposed. The Court rejected all substantive objections, including those based on procedural fairness at the revocation hearing, correspondence of offences, and prison conditions. No new legal precedent was established beyond applying settled principles to the facts of this case.