Attorney General v Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 October 2007
• Date: 17 October 2007
• Docket Number: [2006 No.
• Court: High Court

Attorney General v. Murphy

The Attorney General

Applicant

and

Simon Murphy

Respondent

[2007] IEHC 342,

[2006 No. 20 Ext]

High Court

Criminal law - Extradition - Plea bargaining - Constitution - Administration of justice in public - Whether plea bargaining breaches principle - Fair procedures - Whether coercion on accused to plead - Whether breach of constitutional right - Nature of plea bargaining system - Whether unfair and oppressive - Whether respondent engaging in plea bargaining freely and voluntarily.

A request was made for the extradition of the respondent to the United States of America for sentencing on a charge of sexual assault to which he had pleaded guilty, following a plea bargain made by him with the prosecutor. The respondent sought to avoid his extradition on the basis, inter alia, that the plea bargaining regime in the United States of America was not one which would be constitutionally valid in Ireland and would, therefore, constitute a breach of his constitutional right to fair procedures. It was also contended that the plea bargaining regime was oppressive and unfair and that the respondent felt under pressure to participate in it.

Held by the High Court (Peart J.), in ordering the extradition of the respondent, 1, that the comity of courts required that, in the absence of some very exceptional feature of another country's criminal procedure which was likely to infringe a constitutionally protected fundamental right, the court ought to respect the right and entitlement of another sovereign state to have in place a system for the administration of criminal justice which it considered fair and appropriate.

2. That the respondent had entered upon the plea bargaining procedure freely and without coercion and with the benefit of legal advice. Accordingly, the court was entitled to assume that he did so in the interests of achieving a lesser sentence than if he went to trial on all the charges and was convicted.

3. That, while there was no plea bargaining regime formally in place or engaged upon in the State, it was a well known and accepted feature of the administration of criminal justice in the State that where an accused entered a guilty plea at an early stage, a lesser sentence would result than would be the case where sentence was imposed on conviction following a trial, all other things being equal.

4. That several different interests were served by such a feature encouraging an accused to plead guilty, including that the victim would not be required to endure the ordeal of giving evidence and the saving of court time.

Case mentioned in this report:-

The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Heeney[2001] 1 I.R. 736.

Extradition

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are more fully set out in the judgment of Peart J., infra.

An application to the High Court was made on the 6th February, 2006, for the arrest of the respondent on foot of a certificate issued by the Minister for Justice following the receipt by him of a request for the extradition of the respondent pursuant to s. 26 of the Extradition Act 1965. The respondent was produced before the High Court on the 8th March, 2006, and remanded from time to time.

The application for extradition was heard by the High Court (Peart J.) on the 19th July, 2007.

Cur. adv. vult.

Peart J. 17th October, 2007

[1] Extradition arrangements between this State and the United States of America exist by virtue of the treaty in that regard done at Washington on the 13th July, 1983, ("the Washington Treaty"). Part II of the Extradition Act 1965 was applied to this treaty by the Extradition Act 1965 (Application of Part II) Order 2000.

[2] An order for the extradition of the respondent to the United States of America pursuant to the Washington Treaty is sought by the applicant following the receipt here of a diplomatic note dated the 29th July, 2004, which made a request for his extradition. Further information was sought and obtained following upon that request, and ultimately on the 6th February, 2006, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, under s. 26(1) of the Extradition Act 1965, as amended, certified that he had received this request, and, as provided for by s. 26 of the Act, made an application to the High Court for a warrant of arrest in respect of the respondent. That warrant issued on the 14th February, 2006 and the respondent was duly arrested on foot of same on the 7th March, 2006 and was produced before the High Court on the following day, the 8th March, 2006, as required by s. 26 of the Act, and was remanded from time to time pending the hearing of this application.

[3] I should mention at the outset the fact that the warrant of arrest recites that the respondent was convicted in the United States of America on eight separate offences and these are listed. This is an error. Nothing turns on the error, although counsel for the respondent has submitted that the warrant was invalid as a result. But it is accepted by all parties that he was convicted on only one charge of sexual assault to which he had pleaded guilty. His surrender is sought so that he can be returned for sentencing, having failed to appear on the date fixed for his sentencing hearing.

[4] I am satisfied that the request for extradition in this case is supported, as required by s. 25 of the Act of 1965, by the documentation set forth in that section. There is no need to set out that documentation in any detail.

[5] Section 29(1) of the Act of 1965 provides as follows:-

"(1) Where a person is before the High Court under section 26 or 27 and the Court is satisfied that -

(a) the extradition of that person has been duly requested, and

(b) this Part applies in relation to the requesting country, and

(c) extradition of the person claimed is not prohibited by this Part or by the relevant extradition provisions, and

(d) the documents required to support a request for extradition under section 25 have been produced, "

the Court shall make an order committing that person to a prison (or, if he is not more than twenty-one years of age, to a remand institution) there to await the order of the Minister for his extradition."

[6] There is no issue raised on this application as to whether the offence in respect of which the respondent pleaded guilty in the United States of America corresponds to an offence in this country. It is not in dispute that the respondent has been convicted in...