Minister for Justice and Equality v Ravickas (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, sought an order for the surrender of the Respondent to the Republic of Lithuania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) dated 9th March 2020. The EAW was issued by the Chief Prosecutor of the Department for Criminal Prosecution of the Prosecutor General's Office of Lithuania for the purpose of prosecuting the Respondent on charges relating to participation in a criminal organisation, trafficking in human beings, and illegal drug trafficking.

The High Court endorsed the EAW on 13th July 2020, and the Respondent was arrested and brought before the Court on 26th August 2020. The Court confirmed the identity of the Respondent as the person named in the EAW and found no issues with this identification. The Court also found that no statutory provisions precluded the surrender, noting that an initial objection based on section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 was withdrawn following a Supreme Court judgment.

The offences alleged involve a transnational criminal organisation operating between Lithuania, Ireland, and the UK, involving trafficking of vulnerable persons from Lithuania to Ireland and the UK for the purpose of narcotics distribution. The Court was satisfied that the minimum gravity requirements under the Act of 2003 were met, as each offence carried a maximum penalty exceeding 12 months' imprisonment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent should be surrendered pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant for offences including participation in a criminal organisation, trafficking in human beings, and illegal drug trafficking.
2. Whether surrender is precluded by section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, relating to offences allegedly committed outside the issuing state.
3. Whether the particulars furnished by the issuing state meet the requirements of section 11(1A) of the Act of 2003.
4. Whether the issuing judicial authority qualifies as such under the Act of 2003 and the Framework Decision.
5. Whether objections based on no decision to charge and prison conditions in Lithuania preclude surrender.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• Surrender concerning the drug trafficking offence is precluded by section 44 of the Act of 2003 because the offence was allegedly committed outside Lithuania, specifically in Ireland and the UK, and the requirements of section 44 have not been met.
• The issuing state failed to furnish sufficient particulars to comply with section 11(1A) of the Act of 2003.
• The EAW was not issued by a valid issuing judicial authority (this objection was later withdrawn).
• Surrender is precluded under section 21A of the Act of 2003 due to no decision to charge and try at the time of the EAW issuance (this objection was withdrawn).
• Surrender is precluded due to prison conditions in Lithuania (this objection was withdrawn).
• It was contended that there was no allegation of conspiracy in the EAW and that extraterritorial jurisdiction invoked by Lithuania is not recognised by Ireland.
• Argued that possession of narcotics in Lithuania is implausible as no narcotics were alleged to have been physically present there.

Applicant's Arguments

• Asserted that the offences, including drug trafficking, were alleged to have been committed in Lithuania as well as Ireland and the UK.
• Submitted that the Respondent participated in a transnational criminal conspiracy, where acts committed by conspirators in one state are attributable to others in different states.
• Provided detailed additional information from the issuing judicial authority outlining the transnational nature of the criminal organisation and the Respondent's role within it.
• Argued that the EAW and additional materials furnished sufficient particulars to satisfy section 11(1A) of the Act of 2003.
• Contended that possession encompasses control and joint possession across jurisdictions, justifying the allegation that the narcotics offence occurred in Lithuania as well as other states.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court applied a two-part test under section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 to assess whether surrender was precluded due to the alleged commission of offences outside the issuing state. The first part requires determining where the offence is alleged to have been committed; the second part requires assessing whether the act would constitute an offence under Irish law if committed outside Ireland.

The Court found that the offences, including drug trafficking, were alleged to have been committed in Lithuania as well as Ireland and the UK. This was supported by detailed information from the issuing judicial authority, which described a transnational criminal conspiracy with coordinated roles across multiple jurisdictions. The Court emphasized that conspiracy law imputes acts of one conspirator to others regardless of geographic location, citing established Irish authorities.

Regarding possession of narcotics, the Court accepted that possession includes control and joint possession, allowing for allegations of possession in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that possession could only be physical and local.

On the sufficiency of particulars under section 11(1A), the Court held that the EAW and additional information provided met the statutory requirements. The particulars included the identity of the Respondent, issuing authority details, description and classification of offences, circumstances including time and place, degree of involvement, and penalties. The Court noted that the information was sufficient to inform the Respondent of the charges and enable him to mount a defence.

The Court dismissed objections based on the issuing authority’s validity, absence of a decision to charge and try, and prison conditions, as these were either withdrawn or unsupported.

Consequently, the Court concluded that no statutory or procedural grounds precluded the Respondent’s surrender under the Act of 2003.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to ORDER THE SURRENDER of the Respondent to the Republic of Lithuania pursuant to section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

This decision directly results in the Respondent’s extradition to face prosecution in Lithuania on the specified offences. The Court did not establish any new legal precedent but applied existing principles relating to conspiracy, possession, and procedural sufficiency under the Act of 2003.