Attorney General v Marques and anor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,McKechnie J.,Dunne J.
• Judgment Date: 25 May 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 50
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 25 May 2017

[2017] IESCDET 50

SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

O'Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

Dunne J.

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 1965 (AS AMENDED)

BETWEEN

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

APPLICANT

AND

Eric Eoin Marques

RESPONDENT

AND

IRISH HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUALITY COMMISSION

NOTICE PARTY

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

Result: The Court does not grant leave to the applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal.

Reasons Given:

1 This application for leave to appeal arises from a decision of the Court of Appeal on the 12 ^th of December 2016, whereby it upheld the decision of the High Court of the 16 ^th of December 2015, to order the extradition to the US of the respondent/appellant Eric Eoin Marques. The grounds of appeal relate to the regime for sentencing of the applicant should he be convicted of the offences on which his extradition has been sought. In particular, the applicant refers to what he contends is the procedure in the US whereby issues of fact and respective sentencing are determined on a balance of probabilities, and in particular that a court is entitled to have regard to other allegations of wrongdoing, and even to take into account matters in respect of which the accused was acquitted.

2 It should be noted that this case is related to proceedings Marques v DPP, in which the applicant challenges the decision of the DPP not to prosecute him in this jurisdiction in respect of the offences which he alleged were committed or partly committed in this jurisdiction and in respect of which he contends there is coordinate jurisdiction. The applicant had previously made an application in both cases for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court pursuant to Article 34.5.4 of the Constitution. Those applications were refused by a determination issued on the 3 ^rd of May 2016.

3 The Court of Appeal in this case upholding the High Court considered that some of the matters raised by the applicant were speculative, but in any event applying the decision of this Court in MJELR v Brennan [2007] 3 IR 732, and MJE v Balmer (2016) IESC 25, that the fact that sentencing practice in the US might not necessarily conform to what might be permissible in this jurisdiction under the Constitution, did not in itself mean that the High Court was obliged to refuse extradition. Similarly, applying Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439, and Hoffthman v United...