Case No. CO/6687/2012 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 3037 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 
 
Date: Wednesday 10 October 2012 
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF PUSKUNIGIS 
Claimant 
v 

PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE LITHUANIA 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Claimant appeared in person assisted by interpreter Miss Agile Poceviciene

Miss Hannah Hinton (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T

1.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  This is an appeal pursuant to Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the order of District Judge Purdy on 11 May 2012 that the appellant should be returned to Lithuania in order to face two charges which arise out of the same alleged conduct.  Essentially what is said is that he instigated his partner to present a forged document and false information in order to obtain confirmation, it seems, that enabled him to be granted a conditional release from the correctional institution at which he was serving a sentence.  That is the allegation.  
2.	The matter was argued before the district judge on the basis of a breach of Section 4 (3) of the Act, namely that a person who is arrested under a Part 1 warrant must be brought as soon as practicable before the appropriate judge.  It seems that there were two warrants.  There was an argument whether he had been arrested under one or other or both.  In any event, that matter was sorted out before the district judge.  He concluded that this warrant ‑ and it is the only warrant that is in being now and under which the return is sought ‑ was valid.  
3.	The notice of appeal simply sought, on the face of it, to raise the Section 4 (3) point.  Mr Justice Ouseley made what is the usual order, requiring details to be provided.  Nothing has since been done save that the appellant now is not represented.  Since the order was that the appeal would either be struck out or decided simply on the material that was available, it is not strictly possible for the appellant to raise other matters.  
4.	What he has argued is that he could not be guilty of the offence because the child is indeed his and therefore there was no question of any false information being provided to the authorities.  As I indicated to him, that is not a matter into which I can go.  
5.	I am faced with an allegation that there are two offences, one of being an abettor to the making of a false document or forging a true document, the other being an abettor to seeking to obtain a document or verify the truthfulness of a forged document and presenting it to an official.  Both those offences, if proved, arise out of the same course of conduct.  Nonetheless they are clearly both extradition offences.  
6.	In those circumstances there is nothing I can do to help the appellant, and this appeal must therefore be dismissed.