Sufficient evidence of decision to charge and try Lithuanian accused to justify his surrender

European arrest warrant – Lithuanian authorities seeking man's surrender – prosecutorial warrant - offences of assault causing harm and/or false imprisonment - objected on the grounds that there was no decision to prosecute him - alleged flight from the pre-trial investigation – whether the offence was of sufficient gravity – he objected to the substance and form of certain material submitted by the Minister in support of the application – argued that evidence was not placed on affidavit and was therefore inadmissible – argued that the rules of court make it a mandatory requirement that information submitted in connection with an application for surrender must necessarily be placed on affidavit in order to render it admissible as evidence – European arrest warrant system - simplified system of surrender - mutual trust and recognition of the judicial authorities of the member states - material ordinarily considered by a court engaged in this process consists of the basic and essential arrest warrant document, together with any further information supplied by the issuing judicial authority to the executing judicial authority - provisions of the Framework Decision - High Court is not precluded from considering material submitted in connection with a surrender application unless such material is entered in evidence by way of affidavit – objected to the tone of the Minister’s request for additional information – leading question – argued that the Minister is entitled only to pose such questions in a neutral manner – no authority for this argument - role of a central authority - nothing improper or untoward in the request - defect in the English translation of the arrest warrant originally provided for the court – correspondence - minimum gravity – argued that the warrant in question was in breach of the requirement that a European arrest warrant shall be in the prescribed form - alleged defect in substance of the warrant - no defect or omission in the form or substance of the original arrest warrant as assembled in Lithuania - the relevant omission or defect was in the English translation of the original document – argued that the warrant did not clearly specify that the purpose of the warrant was for the purposes of prosecution, or alternatively that the real purpose of the warrant is the requirement of his surrender for investigation of the alleged offence, as opposed to charge and trial – argued that there cannot be surrender in the absence of a decision to prosecute, charge or try the respondent on the facts as presented – onus on the respondent to demonstrate that no decision has been made to charge and try him - presumption in favour of charge and trial is not displaced by the fact that procedures in the requesting state contain an element of further investigation, or require the respondent to be present for the purposes of those procedures - intention to charge and try is to be interpreted disjunctively - a warrant issued for the purposes of investigation alone will never be sufficient to require surrender - the threshold is passed where the object of the surrender request may be characterised as being accused rather than suspected of having committed the relevant offence - no expert evidence as to Lithuanian criminal procedure proffered – position is closely analogous to that of a person charged with an offence and brought before a court in the initial stages of prosecution in this jurisdiction - evidence discloses that a decision has already been made to prosecute him.