Conclusions
X - Disposal
Therefore, I conclude:
The entirety of the sentence on AW1 is served. This court granted an order on 2 July 2025 discharging the appellant on this matter only following the warrant’s withdrawal by the respondents.
The Judge was correct to conclude that extradition would be proportionate under section 21A(1)(b) of the 2003 Act;
On considering the balancing exercise afresh in the altered circumstances, extradition is not disproportionate, and is compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights, in particular with his qualified right under article 8.
The appeal in respect of AW2 is dismissed.
The appellant’s surrender to the Lithuanian authorities must proceed under section 21(3) of the 2003 Act.
- Heading
- Introduction
- I - Introduction
- II - Chronology
- III - Remaining grounds of appeal
- IV - Legal framework
- V - The appeal test
- VI - Evaluating the offending
- AW1: Conviction
- AW2: Accusations
- VII - Sentencing discussion
- VIII - Article 8
- The Judge’s approach
- Conclusion: Judge’s analysis
- IX - Standing back (Love analysis)
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 1956 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)