Attorney General v Patrick Lee
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 340 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 23 March 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 340
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
International law – Crime & Sentencing – Extradition – Extradition Act 1965 as amended by the Extradition (European Union Offences) Act 2001 – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Fair procedures
Facts: The United States of America sought an order of extradition of the respondent to answer an indictment charging the respondent of wire fraud, unlawful monetary transaction and aggravated identity theft. The respondent contended there was a violation of his fundamental rights having regard to the inhuman prison conditions and treatment meted out to the prisoner in the United States such as overcrowding; insufficiency of evidence, rule of specialty. The respondent contended that his extradition is barred under s. 15 of the Extradition Act 1965 and that there was non-correspondence of his offences with the Irish Law.
Mr. Justice Edwards granted an order committing the respondent to the prison. The Court held that there were ample provisions in place in the United States to secure the safety and protection of the inmates in the prison as evidenced by the documentation furnished by U.S. Federal Bureau of Prison. The Court observed that respondent's pre-trial detention would not violate the right of speedy trial as the pre- trial process would be fair and the information pertaining to the facilities where pre-trial detainees were kept spoke largely of measures taken to avoid overcrowding of detainees and security provisions. The Court held that s. 15 of the Extradition Act 1965 applied to the offences regarded under the law of the State as having been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of that State but not anywhere regarding which the State claimed extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the rule of specialty would not apply in the case because in case he would be tried for either one or both offences, the forfeiture of his properties would be consequent not an alternative upon his conviction. The Court identified the offences under the Irish Law, which if committed in Ireland could be said to be a corresponding offence of required gravity. The Court found that the offences charged met the standard of minimum gravity required for extradition purposes.
2 1.1 In these proceedings the United States of America (hereinafter the United States of America or the United States or the U.S.A. or the U.S.) seeks the extradition of the respondent with a view to placing him on trial to answer an indictment charging 51 counts in total comprising 29 counts of Wire Fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code §§ 1343 and 2; 6 counts of Unlawful Monetary Transaction in violation of Title 18, United States Code §§ 1957 and 2; and 16 counts of Aggravated Identity Theft in violation of Title 18, United States Code § 1028A.
2 2.1 By virtue of the following measures the U.S.A. is a country to which Part II of the Extradition Act 1965, as amended (hereinafter the Act of 1965), applies.
3 2.2 On the 13 th July, 1983, Ireland signed the Treaty on Extradition between the State and the U.S.A. at Washington D.C. (hereinafter the "Washington Treaty"). The Washington Treaty was later amended by the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union, entered into on the 25 th of June 2003 (hereinafter "the EU - US Treaty").
4 2.3 S. 8 of the Act of 1965, as it applied at the material time, stated:
2 "8.-(1) Where by any international agreement or convention to which the State is a party an arrangement (in this Act referred to as an extradition agreement) is made with another country for the surrender by each country to the other of persons wanted for prosecution or punishment or where the Government are satisfied that reciprocal facilities to that effect will be afforded by another country, the Government may by order apply this Part in relation to that country."
5 2.4 The Government by means of the Extradition Act 1965 (Application of Part II) Order, 2000 ( S.I. 474 of 2000) made an order pursuant to s. 8(1) of the Act of 1965 applying Part II of that Act to the United States of America. Notice of the making of the said order was published in An Iris Oifigiúil on the 6 th of February, 2001. Part 9 of S.I. 474 of 2000 was subsequently amended, in order to give effect to provisions of the EU - US Treaty, by the Extradition Act 1965 (Application of Part II) (Amendment) Order 2010 ( S.I. 45 of 2010). Notice of the making of this said order was published in An Iris Oifigiúil on the 19th February, 2010.
6 2.5 Once Part II of the Act of 1965 applies there is a duty on the State to extradite by virtue of s. 9 of that Act, which is in the following terms:
2 "9.-Where a country in relation to which this Part applies duly requests the surrender of a person who is being proceeded against in that country for an offence or who is wanted by that country for the carrying out of a sentence, that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Part, be surrendered to that country."
7 2.6 Section 10 of the Act of 1965, as amended by the Extradition (European Union Offences) Act 2001 (hereinafter the Act of 2001), deals with extraditable offences and in that regard sets out the requirements that must be met as to correspondence and minimum gravity. Subsection (1A) rather than subs. (1) applies in the case of "convention countries" i.e., countries designated as such by the Minister for Foreign Affairs under s. 4 and s. 10, respectively, of the Act of 2001. An s. 4 designation applies the Convention on simplified extradition between the member states of the European Union drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty of European Union, by Council Act done at Brussels on 10 March, 1995; and an s. 10 designation applies the Convention relating to extradition between the member states of the European Union drawn up on the basis of the said Article K.3, by Council Act done at Brussels on 27 th September, 1996. The United States of America was designated a convention country for the purposes of both conventions by the Extradition (European Union Conventions) Act 2001 (Section 4) Order 2001 ( S.I. No 43 of 2010) and by the Extradition (European Union Conventions) Act 2001 (Section 10) Order 2001 ( S.I. No 44 of 2010), respectively.
8 2.7 Accordingly, in so far as s. 10 of the Act of 1965 is relevant to the present case the Court is mainly concerned with subss. (1 A), (3) and (4) which provide:
2 "10.-(1) [Not relevant]
(1A) Subject to subsection (2A), extradition to a requesting country that is a Convention country shall be granted only in respect of an offence that is punishable-
(a) under the laws of that country, by imprisonment or detention for a maximum period of not less than one year or by a more severe penalty, and
(b) under the laws of the State, by imprisonment or detention for a maximum period of not less than 6 months or by a more severe penalty,
and for which, if there has been a conviction and sentence in the requesting country, imprisonment for a period of not less than 4 months or a more severe penalty has been imposed.
(2) [Not relevant]
(2A) [Not relevant]
(3) In this section 'an offence punishable under the laws of the State' means-
(a) an act that, if committed in the State on the day on which the request for extradition is made, would constitute an offence, or
(b) in the case of an offence under the law of a requesting country consisting of the commission of one or more acts including any act committed in the State (in this paragraph referred to as 'the act concerned'), such one or more acts, being acts that, if committed in the State on the day on which the act concerned was committed or alleged to have been committed would constitute an offence,
and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In this section 'an offence punishable under the laws of the requesting country' means an offence punishable under the laws of the requesting country on-
(a) the day on which the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed, and
(b) the day on which the request for extradition is made,
and cognate words shall be construed accordingly."
9 2.8 A request for a person's extradition is made to the Minister (for Justice and Equality - as he is currently entitled) in the first instance, and any such request must comply with the formalities prescribed in s. 23 of the Act of 1965 and be accompanied by the supporting documentation specified in s. 25(1) of that Act.
10 2.9 Section 23 of the Act of 1965 provides:
2 "23.-A request for the extradition of any person shall be made in writing and shall be communicated by-
(a) a diplomatic agent of the requesting country, accredited to the State, or
(b) any other means provided in the relevant extradition provisions."
11 2.10 Section 25(1) of the Act of 1965 provides:
2 "25.-(1) A request for extradition shall be supported by the following documents-
(a) the original or an authenticated copy of the conviction and sentence or detention order immediately enforceable or, as the case may be, of the warrant of arrest or other order having the same effect and issued in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law of the requesting country;
(b) a statement of each offence for which extradition is requested specifying, as accurately as possible, the time and place of commission, its legal description and a reference to the relevant provisions of the law of the requesting country;
(c) a copy of the relevant enactments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Marques
...gave its decision in Damache, a decision of Edwards J was uploaded to the Courts Service website. That decision Attorney General v Lee, [2015] IEHC 340, was delivered on the 23rd March, 2015. In that case, Edwards J held that the court was not satisfied that the system of plea bargaining t......
-
Minister for Justice v AM
...of this approach is to be found in the recent case law involving extraditions to the United States such as Attorney General v. Lee [2015] IEHC 340, Attorney General v. Damache [2015] IEHC 339 and Attorney General v. Marques [2015] IEHC 798. 63 In the present case, the respondent has not put......
-
Attorney General v Lee
...committing Mr. Lee to prison to await the order of the Minister for Justice for his extradition. (See Attorney General v. Patrick Lee (2015) IEHC 340). Mr. Lee appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed with both Peart and Hogan JJ. delivering judgments with whi......