British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Rauktys, R (on the application of) v Minister of Justice, Republic of Lithuania [2014] EWHC 4232 (Admin) (21 November 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/4232.html
Cite as: [2014] EWHC 4232 (Admin)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF RAUKTYS | Appellant | |
| v | ||
| MINISTER OF JUSTICE, REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA | Respondent |
____________________
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)
Mr Ben Seifert appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- MR JUSTICE BLAKE: This is an appeal from a decision of District Judge Devas made on 15 September 2014 at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on a conviction warrant issued by the Republic of Lithuania. The issue below was whether the implementation of extradition pursuant to the warrant would be unlawful because of interference with Article 8 (family life). The judge was not persuaded by that.
- A notice of appeal was issued but no substantive grounds have ever emerged. The appellant's advocates have indicated to him and the court their wish to come off the record; he is in custody. They have advised him that there are no submissions to be advanced in favour of his Article 8 contention which is barely stated. The position today is that his advocates cannot advance any argument in favour of the appeal.
- I therefore accede to the application that they come off the record. I then examine the appeal on the materials before the court as they are today. I have the advantage of a skeleton argument from the respondent that had been served on the claimant and to which there is no reply. In the light of that skeleton and in the absence of any submission made by the appellant in support of the appeal, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed essentially for the reasons contained in the respondent's skeleton argument. For these reasons, this appeal is dismissed.