The High Court has made it clear it will not sanction the extradition of "wanted" people to other countries in cases where shoddy applications are presented to the court.
Mr Justice Peart refused yesterday to imprison a Lithuanian man to await extradition to his home country to face trial for alleged forgery and obtaining money under false pretences.
Mr Justice Peart, in a reserved judgment, said that under the Extradition Act the court could not grant extradition for an offence which was political in nature.
Similarly, extradition could not be granted if there were substantial grounds for believing extradition for an ordinary criminal offence had been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that that person's position might be prejudiced for these reasons.
Mr Darius Musinskas had claimed in evidence that, while he was living in Lithuania, no allegations of a criminal nature had been made against him or brought to his attention.
"He also says that, while there, he involved himself in political matters, and this had culminated in distinct and serious threats made to him personally which included threats and the burning of his hall door as an indication of what was to come," Mr Justice Peart said.
Mr Musinskas had gone on to say he was in distinct fear for his family's safety.
The judge said an important feature of the application was the fact that the Lithuanian authorities had clearly taken a decision, for whatever reason, not to contradict what Mr Musinskas had stated in evidence.
"It would surely have been a very simple matter for them to deny that he had any political involvement, and to deny that his extradition is being sought for any reason related to his alleged political activity, or that his position might be in any way prejudiced on that account," the judge said.
This would have put the onus back on to Mr Musinskas to set out in some more detail exactly his political allegations.
The absence of any denial from the Lithuanian authorities, in spite of ample opportunity, gave him sufficient cause for concern to regard it as a substantial ground for believing or inferring Mr Musinskas's position might be prejudiced.
Mr Justice Peart said the court was mandated by the Extradition Act not to grant an order for extradition in such circumstances and he refused to do so and ordered the immediate release of Mr Musinskas. He criticised the "unsatisfactory nature" of the information furnished by the Lithuanian authorities with their request for extradition.
The translation of the documents was not sufficiently clear to understand precisely the procedures and the sequence of events prior to and subsequent to the application.
The High Court here had been left in the position of not understanding the procedures in Lithuania sufficiently.
He said it was the failure of the Lithuanian authorities to reply to Mr Musinskas's contradictory claims which had given him cause for some concern that all was not what it ought to be as far as their request for extradition was concerned.