Attorney General v Martin Jude Wall
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Paul Burns |
| Judgment Date | 11 October 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 687 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2020 No. 53 EXT.] |
In the Matter of the Extradition Act, 1965, as Amended
[2021] IEHC 687
[2020 No. 53 EXT.]
THE HIGH COURT
Extradition – Correspondence – Breach of fundamental human rights – Applicant seeking an order committing the respondent to prison, there to await the order of the Minister for Justice for his extradition to the United States of America – Whether the conditions in which the respondent would be required to live, if surrendered, would be in breach of his fundamental human rights
Facts: The applicant, the Attorney General, applied to the High Court seeking an order pursuant to s. 29(1) of the Extradition Act 1965, as amended, committing the respondent, Mr Wall, to prison, there to await the order of the Minister for Justice for his extradition to the United States of America (the USA). The surrender of the respondent was sought in order that he be re-sentenced in the USA for a conviction on charges related to online sexual abuse of another person believed to be a child. The respondent indicated that surrender was being contested on two grounds, namely: (i) lack of correspondence between the offences to which the extradition request related and any offence under the law of the State as required by s. 10 of the Act of 1965; and (ii) the conditions in which the respondent would be required to live, if surrendered, would be in breach of his fundamental human rights, in particular his right to private life and his right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Held by Burns J that, having considered the acts carried out by the respondent and the contents of s. 3 of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998, as amended, the acts of the respondent, if committed in Ireland’s jurisdiction, would amount to the offence contrary to s. 3(4) of the 1998 Act of attempting to commit an offence contrary to s. 3(2) of the 1998 Act and thus the necessary correspondence could be established. Burns J was not satisfied that, if surrendered, the respondent would inevitably be driven into homelessness and poverty by reason of the system of probation and/or post-release supervision in the state of Georgia. Nor was Burns J satisfied that any risk of future homelessness and/or poverty could be solely, or sufficiently, attributed to the system of probation and/or post-release supervision to the extent that same could be regarded as the state of Georgia breaching the respondent’s right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Burns J was not satisfied that the system of probation and/or the operation of the sex offenders’ register in the state of Georgia was so contrary to the scheme and order envisaged by the Constitution that the Court was required to refuse extradition.
Burns J held that, being satisfied that the requirements for the making of an order had been met, having dismissed the respondent’s objections to surrender and being satisfied that there was no bar to the making of the order, the Court would make an order pursuant to s. 29(1) of the 1965 Act committing the respondent to prison, there to await the order of the Minister for his extradition to the USA.
Application granted.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Paul Burns delivered on the 11th day of October, 2021
In this application, the applicant seeks an order pursuant to s. 29(1) of the Extradition Act, 1965, as amended (“the Act of 1965”), committing the respondent to prison, there to await the order of the Minister for Justice (“the Minister”) for his extradition to the United States of America (“the USA”).
I am satisfied that a request for the extradition of the respondent to the USA has been made in writing in accordance with s. 23 of the Act of 1965 and received by the Minister on 6th January, 2020, as confirmed in the certificate of the Minister dated 6th February, 2020 which was completed for the purposes of s. 26(1)(a) of the Act of 1965.
In this Court, Binchy J. issued a warrant for the arrest of the respondent on 17th February, 2020 which was duly executed on 8th December, 2020.
The documentation received from the requesting state consists of:-
-
(i) A certificate of the Attorney General of the USA dated 22nd November, 2019 certifying that Thomas N. Burrows is, and was at the relevant time, Associate Director of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, USA;
-
(ii) The certificate of Thomas N. Burrows dated 21st November, 2019 attaching the affidavit, with attachments, of Gregory M. McConnell, Chief Assistant District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney for the Eastern Judicial Circuit of Georgia, sworn 18th November, 2019, offered in support of the request for the extradition of the respondent and asserting that true copies of those documents are maintained in the official files of the US Department of Justice in Washington DC; and
-
(iii) The affidavit of Gregory M. McConnell dated 18th November, 2019, together with the following exhibits:-
-
(a) Indictment and guilty plea voluntariness questions;
-
(b) Sentencing order;
-
(c) Relevant applicable statutes;
-
(d) Guilty plea transcript;
-
(e) Probation warrant;
-
(f) Affidavit and order tolling sentence;
-
(g) Chatham County Detention Centre booking photo;
-
(h) Georgia Department of Driving Services driver's licence photo; and
-
(i) Polygraph report.
-
The surrender of the respondent is sought in order that he be re-sentenced in the USA for a conviction on charges related to online sexual abuse of another person believed to be a child. The respondent previously pleaded guilty to the said charges and was sentenced to a period of detention and, thereafter, to probationary supervision. However, he failed to abide by the terms of the probation, left the USA and came to this jurisdiction.
I am satisfied that the person before the Court, the respondent, is the person in respect of whom the request for extradition has been made. This was not put in issue.
I am satisfied that the USA is a country to which Part II of the Act of 1965 applies and that the USA is a designated extradition state pursuant to the Extradition (United States of America) Order, 2019 ( S.I. No. 393 of 2019).
I am satisfied that the minimum gravity requirements set out at s. 10 of the Act of 1965 have been met. The balance of sentence which the respondent may be required to serve is 12 years, six months and 11 days' imprisonment.
I am satisfied that a warrant for the arrest of the respondent dated 21st January, 2014 was issued by John E. Morse, Superior Court Judge in the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia, and a certified copy of same is before the Court as exhibited in the affidavit of Gregory M. McConnell.
I am satisfied that an adequate statement of the offences for which extradition is requested, together with a copy of the relevant provisions of USA law, has been put before the Court by way of the affidavit of Gregory M. McConnell and the exhibits thereto, including copies of the indictment and sentencing order.
I am satisfied that an accurate description of the requested person is set out in the affidavit of Gregory M. McConnell and, in particular, the photographs referred to therein.
Counsel on behalf of the respondent indicated at the outset of the hearing that he was not taking any issue with the formal proofs in the matter. He indicated that surrender was being contested on two grounds, namely:-
-
(i) Lack of correspondence between the offences to which the extradition request relates and any offence under the law of this State as required by s. 10 of the Act of 1965; and
-
(ii) The conditions in which the respondent would be required to live, if surrendered, would be in breach of his fundamental human rights, in particular his right to private life and his right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.
On 14th February, 2012, the respondent entered a negotiated guilty plea before the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia in respect of three offences as follows:-
-
(i) Utilising a computer online service to entice another person believed to be a child to engage in sexual conduct;
-
(ii) Obscene internet contact with another person believed to be a child; and
-
(iii) Criminal attempt to commit enticing a child for an indecent purpose.
The offences relate to events on 12th January, 2011 when an undercover detective created a non-sexually suggestive profile in an internet chatroom posing as a 13-year-old female. The respondent initiated contact with this detective and initiated conversation about sexual matters with the person he believed to be a 13-year-old female child. The respondent sent a nude photo of himself to the person he believed to be a 13-year-old female child and arranged to meet her at a particular location. When he arrived at the meeting location, he was placed under arrest. On foot of the negotiated guilty plea, the respondent received a total sentence of 15 years' probation of which he was required to serve a minimum of 240 days and a maximum of 365 days in a probation detention centre as a special condition of probation. Among his duties while on probation, he was to report as directed to the probation office. The respondent served the requisite period in the detention centre but, while serving the probated portion of his sentence, he failed to report to the probation office as directed, failed to reside at the address given by him and effectively absconded from probation supervision in breach of the terms of his probation. On 21st January, 2014, a probation arrest warrant was issued. The balance of his sentence is effectively stayed until he is brought back before the sentencing court.
In broad terms, s. 10 of the Act of 1965 provides extradition shall be granted only in respect of an offence which is punishable...
To continue reading
Request your trial