Woman tried for child murder in Scotland and Lithuania loses appeal against extradition to serve sentence abroad

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] HCJAC 48
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lady Wise

Ineta Gavenaite, who had previously been prosecuted for the murder of another of her children in Scotland, argued that extradition would be in breach of her rights under Article 3 ECHR and ought also to be refused on the ground of passage of time. She had been remanded in custody since July 2023 after being released from prison due to serving beyond the backdated expiration of her sentence in the second prosecution, and argued that the Lithuanian authorities would not honour the additional time she had spent in prison in Scotland.

The appeal was heard in the High Court of Justiciary by Lady Wise, Lord Clark, and Lord Ericht. McCall KC appeared for the appellant and McGuire, advocate depute, for the Crown.

Fresh prosecution

The appellant was born in Lithuania in 1985. In 2010, she moved to Fraserburgh in connection with her husband’s employment, and gave birth to a son, Paulius, who was discovered the day after his birth dead inside a plastic bag in a holdall in the common stair of their property. Two weeks later, at her previous home in Lithuania, the body of the appellant’s youngest daughter Paulina was found, having been suffocated shortly after birth.

In June 2011, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court of Justiciary for the murder of Paulius, with a punishment part of 15 years. She was then extradited to Lithuania to stand trial for the murder of Paulina and afterwards returned to Scotland to continue serving her life sentence. The Scottish murder conviction was later quashed following disclosures made by the appellant in 2021 and during a fresh prosecution in 2023 she pled guilty to culpable homicide and was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years’ imprisonment backdated to 15 April 2010. She was remanded in custody again on 6 July 2023, with the intention that every day in custody since then would count towards her Lithuanian sentence.

It was submitted that the sheriff had erred in refusing her challenge as based on her mental health and the risk of suicide. The appellant had a diagnosis of PTSD, which she was suffering from at the time of both killings and had a significant effect on her conduct. The necessary treatment for her was not available in Panevezys, Lithuania’s only female prison. On the second ground of appeal, the sheriff erred in reaching conclusions about diminished responsibility in Lithuanian law, and it was argued that the authorities there would not take account of the four years and eight months served in custody after the expiry of her Scottish sentence.

For the respondent it was submitted that the sheriff’s report disclosed no error in law or in fact. He had concluded that the necessary treatment was available in Panevezys prison and was entitled to reject the appellant’s evidence to the contrary effect. While there was evidence the appellant had attempted suicide in 2009, the evidence did not come close to the type of substantial risk required for extradition to be oppressive. On the passage of time, the additional time in custody was an unfortunate consequence of the timing of the appellant’s disclosures in Scotland and would not be sufficient in itself for an appeal to succeed.

Unsatisfactory and unreliable

Lady Wise, delivering the opinion of the court, began with the first ground of appeal: “The sheriff took care to inform himself of the availability of medical, including psychiatric, services in the relevant prison. There was no reliable evidence to support a concern that the Lithuanian authorities would not meet their obligations in this respect. To the contrary, the available information was to the effect that the appellant would be able to access a full range of medical and psychiatric services if required. Reliance was placed on the particularly specialised treatment the appellant has received in this jurisdiction, albeit that she does not currently require to access that.”

She continued: “It is clear from his report that, absent the additional information from Lithuania, the sheriff would have ordered extradition on the basis that the evidence led on behalf of the appellant was so unsatisfactory and unreliable that the presumption was not rebutted. He cannot properly be criticised for undertaking additional enquiries to see whether the deficiencies in the evidence could be explained or overcome.”

Considering the effect of the passage of time, Lady Wise observed: “This is not a case in which blame for the delay can be attributed to the requesting state, the Lithuanian authorities having acted appropriately in delaying the second extradition request until the time at which the appellant’s release was anticipated. The sheriff cannot be criticised for considering whether any part of the delay was the fault of the Lithuanian authorities, as that would have been a relevant factor. In the absence of any such fault, the issue becomes whether the whole circumstances would now give rise to injustice or oppression if the appellant is extradited.”

She concluded: “We are not persuaded that that the sheriff should have decided differently the question of whether the additional time served in Scotland would render it oppressive to extradite the appellant. The relevant series of events includes the timing of the appellant’s disclosures in August 2021, when she had already served 10 years of the original life sentence punishment part of 15 years. No criticism can properly be levelled at the appellant for that, but neither can the Lithuanian authorities be expected to commit to resolving its consequences. Again, it will be for the appellant to make such applications to the relevant authorities about this matter as are considered appropriate.”

The appeal was therefore refused on both grounds.