Minister for Justice v Garbenis (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Minister for Justice ("the Minister") applied under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended ("the Act of 2003"), for an order directing the surrender of the Respondent to the Republic of Lithuania pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") issued on 25 January 2024 by a deputy chief prosecutor in the Lithuanian Prosecutor General's Office. The High Court endorsed the EAW on 1 February 2024. The Respondent was arrested and brought before the court on 6 February 2024, with no dispute as to identity or the validity of the endorsement.

The EAW requests the surrender of the Respondent to face prosecution for two offences under Lithuanian law: sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years of age between November 2021 and May 2022, contrary to Article 151 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code; and sexual exploitation of a female under 16 years of age between December 2021 and March 2022, contrary to Article 153 of the same Code. Both offences carry potential imprisonment of up to five years. The decision underpinning the EAW was a ruling of the Kaunas District Court dated 13 December 2023 directing the Respondent’s arrest. Points of objection were filed on behalf of the Respondent on 19 March 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Minister has established the necessary matters under section 16(1) of the Act of 2003 to justify the surrender of the Respondent.
2. Whether surrender may be refused under section 38(1A) of the Act of 2003 on the ground that the offences specified in the EAW do not correspond to offences under the law of the State ("the lack of correspondence objection").
3. Whether the Lithuanian Prosecutor General qualifies as a "judicial authority" within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and section 2(1) of the Act of 2003, such that the EAW issued by that authority is valid ("the issuing judicial authority objection").

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent argued that the Minister must prove the matters required under section 16(1) of the Act of 2003, particularly that surrender is not prohibited under section 38(1A) due to lack of correspondence between the foreign offences and domestic law.
• The Respondent contended that the Lithuanian Prosecutor General is not a judicial authority as defined by the Framework Decision or the Act of 2003, citing concerns about the independence and objectivity of the issuing authority and the lack of effective judicial protection against the decision to issue the EAW.

Minister's Arguments

• The Minister submitted that the offences specified in the EAW correspond to offences under the law of the State, specifically the defilement of a child under 17 years and sexual exploitation of a child, as defined in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Acts 2006 and 2017 respectively.
• The Minister relied on binding authority from the Court of Justice of the European Union and Irish courts confirming that the Lithuanian Prosecutor General qualifies as an issuing judicial authority, with sufficient guarantees of independence and effective judicial protection.
• The Minister emphasized the principle of mutual trust between Member States, noting that no cogent countervailing evidence was presented to challenge the information provided by the Lithuanian prosecuting authority.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a detailed examination of the objections raised by the Respondent. Regarding the lack of correspondence objection, the court noted that it was not pressed at hearing nor addressed in submissions but proceeded to assess correspondence under section 5 of the Act of 2003. The court accepted the Minister’s submissions that the alleged offences corresponded to offences under domestic law: defilement of a child under 17 and sexual exploitation of a child. Consequently, surrender could not be refused on this ground.

On the issuing judicial authority objection, the court considered the Advocate General’s opinion in Case C-509/18 but emphasized that the binding Grand Chamber judgment in the same case recognized the Prosecutor General of Lithuania as an issuing judicial authority due to guarantees of independence and effective judicial protection. The court further relied on Irish High Court and Court of Appeal decisions affirming this position and rejecting challenges absent cogent countervailing evidence. The court found no evidence before it to undermine the status of the Lithuanian Prosecutor General.

Finally, the court confirmed satisfaction of all statutory proofs required under section 16(1) of the Act of 2003, including identity, endorsement of the EAW, absence of trial in absentia, and absence of grounds for refusal under Part 3 of the Act.

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(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The surrender is to be made to a person duly authorized by the Lithuanian authorities to receive him.

The decision directly effects the immediate extradition of the Respondent without establishing new legal precedent beyond affirming existing authority regarding the status of the Lithuanian Prosecutor General as an issuing judicial authority and the application of the correspondence test. No broader legal implications or novel principles were introduced.