Ali Charaf Damache v DPP and Others
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | High Court |
Judge | Mr. Justice Edwards |
Judgment Date | 31 January 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] IEHC 114 |
Date | 31 January 2014 |
[2014] IEHC 114
THE HIGH COURT
Between:
AND
AND
AND
AG v DAMACHE UNREP 11.2.2013 [TRANSCRIPT NOT AVAILABLE]
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S26
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 PART II
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S29
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 S3
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 3
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 5
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
CONSTITUTION ART 38.1
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 13
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S15
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT (APPLICATION TO THIRD COUNTRIES & AMDT) & EXTRADITION (AMDT) ACT 2012 S27
OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT S29(1)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1976 S71
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S6
NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S5
PROHIBITION OF INCITEMENT TO HATRED ACT 1989 S2
POST OFFICE (AMDT) ACT 1951 S13
CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1976 S5
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT (APPLICATION TO THIRD COUNTRIES & AMDT) & EXTRADITION (AMDT) BILL 2011 S25
DAMACHE v DPP & AG 2012 2 IR 266
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT 1974 S4(3)(B)
AG v GARLAND UNREP EDWARDS 27.1.2012 2012/3/541 2012 IEHC 90
DAMACHE v DPP & ORS UNREP 2012 2 IR 266 2012 2 ILRM 153 2012 IESC 11
CONSTITUTION ART 34.1
G v DPP 1994 1 IR 374
R v INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS, EX PARTE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SELF-EMPLOYED & SMALL BUSINESSES LTD 1982
AGBONLAHOR v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2007 1 ILRM 58
C (D) v DPP 2005 4 IR 281
G v DPP 1994 1 IR 374
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S15(2)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S15(1)
STATE (KILLIAN) v AG 1957 92 ILTR 182
JUDGE v DPP 1984 ILRM 224
SAVAGE v DPP 1982 ILRM 385
STATE (MCCORMACK) v CURRAN & ORS 1987 ILRM 225
H v DPP 1994 2 ILRM 285
INTERNATIONAL FISHING VESSELS LTD v MIN FOR MARINE 1989 IR 149
H (LG) v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP EDWARDS 30.1.2009 2009/24/5913 2009 IEHC 78
HUSSAIN v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP HOGAN 13.4.2011 2011/26/6875 2011 IEHC 171
EVISTON v DPP 2002 3 IR 260
E (G) v DPP 2009 1 IR 801
RAWSON v MIN FOR DEFENCE UNREP SUPREME 1.5.2012 2012/40/11874 2012 IESC 26
MALLAK v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2012 3 IR 297
EVISTON v DPP 2002 3 IR 260
CRIMINAL LAW AMDT ACT 1935 S2(2)
C (C) v IRELAND 2006 4 IR 1
O'DONOGHUE v BORD PLEANALA 1991 ILRM 750
STATE (SWEENEY) v MIN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 1979 ILRM 35
MEADOWS v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2010 2 IR 701
SHUM v IRELAND 1986 ILRM 593
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 41
STATE (LYNCH) v COONEY 1982 IR 337
STATE (DALY) v MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1987 IR 165
INTERNATIONAL FISHING VESSELS LTD v MIN FOR THE MARINE 1989 IR 149
MCCORMACK v GARDA SIOCHANA COMPLAINTS BOARD 1997 2 IR 489
STATE (CREEDON) v CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1988 IR 51
JORDAN v UK 2003 37 EHRR 52
H v DPP 1994 2 IR 589
S (N) v ANDERSON & ORS 2008 3 IR 417
SIRITANU v DPP UNREP DUNNE 2.2.2006 2005/55/11472 2006 IEHC 26
UN CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 ART 31
MACCURTAIN, IN RE 1941 IR 83
STATE (BOLLARD) v GOVERNOR OF PORTLAOISE PRISON UNREP KENNY 4.12.1972
KAVANAGH v IRELAND 1996 1 IR 321
BYRNE v GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND UNREP SUPREME 7.12.1999
DPP v QUIGLEY UNREP CHARLETON 14.3.2007 2007/20/4140 2007 IEHC 92
DUNPHY (A MINOR) v DPP 2006 1 ILRM 241 2005/18/3760 2005 IESC 75
CARLIN v DPP 2010 3 IR 547
WARD v DPP UNREP SUPREME 18.12.1997 1998/33/13054
H (H) v DPP & COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SIOCHANA UNREP PEART 31.1.2012 2012/17/4834 2012 IEHC 41
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S15(1)(B)
EXTRADITION ACT 2003 (UK) S19(B)
EXTRADITION ACT 2003 (UK) S83(A)
POLICE & JUSTICE ACT 2006 (UK) S42
POLICE & JUSTICE ACT 2006 (UK) SCHED 13
CRIME & COURTS ACT (UK) 2013 S50
CRIME & COURTS ACT (UK) 2013 S20
EXTRADITION ACT 2003 (UK) S83(A)(3)
EXTRADITION ACT 2003 (UK) S83(B)
EXTRADITION ACT 2003 (UK) S83(C)
EXTRADITION ACT 2003 (UK) S83(D)
DAMACHE v DPP & ORS 2012 2 ILRM 153
SPILIADA MARITIME v CANSULEX 1987 AC 460
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S17(1)
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S41
R (BERMINGHAM) v DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE 2007 QB 727
MIN FOR JUSTICE v E(T) UNREP EDWARDS 19.6.2013 2013 IEHC 323
MIN FOR JUSTICE v E(T) UNREP EDWARDS 24.1.2014 2014 IEHC 51
EXTRADITION ACT 2003 (UK) PART 2
Judicial review - Criminal law - Terrorism offences - Extradition – Decision not to prosecute - Reasons for decision - Reasonability - Proportionality - Impact on Constitutional and convention rights - Fair procedures - Right of access to the courts - Certiorari - Constitution of Ireland - European Convention on Human Rights - Extradition Act 1965
Facts: This matter concerned an application for leave to apply for various reliefs and remedies by way judicial review. The application was brought in the context of extradition proceedings in which the applicant was before the Court pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the High Court on the 15th February 2013, on foot of a request made by the United States of America in accordance with Part II of the Extradition Act of 1965 (‘the 1965 Act’). The extradition was sought in respect of the applicant”s alleged involvement in a terrorism-related conspiracy which he was said to have orchestrated from within Ireland. At the time of this judgment, the warrant of arrest had been executed and the committal hearing under s. 29 of the 1965 Act was pending.
The applicant sought, inter alia, an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first named respondent not to prosecute the applicant in respect of the alleged offences for which his extradition was sought by the United States and an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first named respondent refusing to give reasons for declining to prosecute. Various declaratory reliefs to this effect were also sought. It was argued that the first named respondent”s refusal to prosecute was unreasonable, disproportionate and made without proper regard to the impact that the extradition of the applicant would have on his constitutional and Convention rights. In regard to the refusal to give reasons for declining to prosecute the applicant, it was argued that this was a breach of his right to fair procedures as protected by Article 40.3 of the Constitution of Ireland and had unduly hindered his right of access to the courts, as protected by Article 38.1 of the Constitution.
The respondents argued that in making a decision whether or not to prosecute the applicant, there was no obligation on the part of the first named respondent to take into account a number of extraneous considerations that were raised by the applicant. For instance, the applicant had argued that the first named respondent was compelled to consider the trial process and penal conditions in the United States of America, but this contention was rejected by the respondents. The respondents also argued that first named respondent was under no obligation to provide reasons for refusing to prosecute the applicant due to its unique position in relation to the institution of criminal proceedings. In this regard, it was pointed out that the relevant case law made it clear that there is no obligation on the first named respondent to give reasons when issuing certificates directing trial before the Special Criminal Court.
Held by Edwards J. that for leave to apply for judicial review to be granted, the applicant had to demonstrate an arguable case.
It was held that the applicant”s contention that the refusal to prosecute him within Ireland was unreasonable, disproportionate and made without proper regard to the impact that the extradition of the applicant would have on his constitutional and Convention rights, was unstateable. It was said that this decision was one that entirely benefited the applicant, not least because there was no possibility that he could then be extradited under the law as it was at the time. It was also noted that this decision was taken at a time when there was no indication that the law of extradition would shortly be amended. In regards to the first named respondent”s decision not to give reasons for refusing to give reasons for its refusal to prosecute, it was held that the relevant case law made it clear that there was no such obligation unless there was evidence of mala fides, abdication of functions or impropriety. It was also said that even if that was not the case, the applicant could only be compelled to give reasons where there was a legitimate basis for complaint. Such a basis did not exist, however, because it had already been found that the decision not to prosecute the applicant was one that was to his benefit. There was, therefore, no arguable case advanced in this regard
Application for leave refused.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Edwards delivered on the 31st day of January 2014
1.The Court is concerned with an application, on notice to the respondents and notice party named above upon the direction of the High Court, (White (Michael) J.) to whom the matter was initially mentioned ex parte, for leave to apply for various reliefs and remedies by way judicial review. It arises in the context of extradition proceedings pending before the High Court and entitled The Attorney General v, AH Charaf Damache (Record No. 2013/51 EXT), in which the applicant is before the Court pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the High Court on the 15 th of February, 2013, under s. 26 of the Extradition Act 1965 as amended by the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1994, the Extradition...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Attorney General v Davis
...Public Prosecutions to prosecute offences in Ireland and no challenge by way of judicial review to any such decision (see Damache v. DPP [2014] IEHC 114). In addition, though the respondent claims that the former s. 15 applies because the alleged conspiracy dates back to 2011, the indictme......
-
Attorney General v Marques
...statutory scheme now in place in the United Kingdom. This was reviewed extensively by Edwards J in his first judgment in Damache v DPP [2014] IEHC 114. (See; paras. [145] to [162]). 11.27 Counsel relied upon the reasoning of the Baker Committee Report as to the justifications for a partial ......
-
Damache v The Minister for Justice and Equality
...should be made on notice to the respondents, which was done, and ultimately leave was refused by Edwards J. in Damache v D.P.P. [2014] IEHC 114 (Unreported, High Court, 31st January, 2014). The applicant then brought a second leave application making a further challenge to the decision not......
-
Attorney General v Damache
...of the judicial reviews and the reasoning of Edwards J. are set out in the judgments he delivered in those cases in Damache v DPP [2014] IEHC 114 and Damache v DPP (No. 2) [2014] IEHC 139. Those judgments and orders were appealed to the Supreme Court and on the 3 rd November, 2014, the Supr......