Kurganas v Prosecutors General Office Lithuania [2013] EWHC 256 (Admin)

Case No CO/13259/2012[2013] EWHC 256 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Tuesday, 29th January 2013
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE BEAN
Between
ARUNAS KURGANASAppellantv
Between
PROSECUTORS GENERAL OFFICE LITHUANIARespondent
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr J D Atlee (instructed by Atlee Chung & Co) appeared for AppellantMs H Hinton (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared for Respondent
J U D G M E N T
[1]MR JUSTICE BEAN: This is an appeal in an accusation case. The appellant challenges the decision of District Judge Zani at the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 6th December 2012, ordering his extradition to Lithuania to face a charge of making a false document or forging a true document to obtain property and services alleged to have been committed in 2005. Putting it more succinctly, the accusations are of forgery and swindling. It appears that very shortly afterwards the appellant came to this country.[2]The appellant gave oral evidence before the District Judge and had in addition submitted a signed proof of evidence. The District Judge said this:
"In his signed proof of evidence he [the appellant] said that he only became aware of these proceedings when he was arrested by the British police executing the warrant for his extradition on 7th November 2012. He somewhat modified this in his live evidence. He said that he was in regular telephone contact with his parents, who remain in Lithuania, and who had told him some 3 to 4 years ago that someone was looking for him albeit this person had not identified himself as a police officer. I did not find the requested person a credible witness. In my view he was not convincing when he said that he could not recall when in the summer of 2005 he had travelled to the UK. I bear in mind that the period of offending is said to have been early May 2005 through to mid July 2005 and I note that paragraph (f) of the EAW states that he 'hid from pre-trial investigation and on 12th October 2005 a search for him was announced ...'. I also anticipate that the requested person will have been told more by his parents than he is willing to inform this court in respect of the person who was looking for him. I am entirely satisfied that the judicial authority have proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the requested person is a fugitive from justice and that therefore he cannot rely on the protection afforded by s.14 of the 2003 Act."
[3]Although in theory I could overturn these findings of fact of the District Judge, there is no conceivable basis for doing so. The District Judge was entitled to find that the appellant came here in 2005 well knowing that he had been accused of serious allegations of dishonesty, in which case he is a classic fugitive and it is not open to him to rely on oppression by virtue of the passage of time under section 14. He could not conceivably do so in reliance on Article 8 of the ECHR either, given that he has no children and no close family here, and Mr Atlee, who has significant experience in these cases, has rightly not pursued the allegation of breach of Article 8.[4]In those circumstances the District Judge made an order which was plainly open to him on the evidence and I must dismiss the appeal.[5]MR ATLEE: May I make the usual application.[6]MR JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, you may, and I grant the usual order in respect of legally aided costs. Thank you.