"Judicial authority" extradition result in Bucnys

An extradition request from a ministry of justice in an EU state can be granted only if it is acting at the behest of a court, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a much-anticipated decision.

Bucnys v Ministry of Justice, Lithuania [2013] UKSC 71 centred on the correct interpretation of “judicial authority”, in the Extradition Act 2003, s 2(2).

It concerned three European Arrest Warrants based on convictions, two issued in Lithuania, and one in Estonia.

The Justices held that the warrants issued by the Lithuanian ministry of justice for convicted housebreaker Mindaugas Bucnys and by the Estonian ministry of justice for convicted murderer Dimitri Lavrov were valid because they stemmed from a decision by a court.

However, they dismissed the Lithuanian ministry’s warrant for Marius Sakalis, who had a conviction for sexual assault, because it stemmed from a prison authority.

The case provides further clarification on extradition, and follows the accusation warrant case of Julian Assange, Assange v the Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 where it was held that a public prosecutor fell under the definition of “judicial authority”.

Thomas Garner, head of extradition law at Gherson, said: “A ministry of justice is a part of the executive.

“What the court has said is that an EAW issued by a ministry of justice can be granted if issued by way of endorsement or at the behest of a court or some other judicial body, but if the ministry is acting on its own or at the request of a prison authority then the application fails.

“It is not a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and potentially opens the door to more challenges in future because the court says the antecedent process should be looked at. If you had a case now where the warrant was issued by a ministry of justice, they would have to give evidence on how the warrant came to be issued.”