Attorney General v Pratkunas

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 28 November 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 418
• Docket Number: Record Number: No. 40 Ext/2006
• Court: High Court
• Date: 28 November 2007

[2007] IEHC 418

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: No. 40 Ext/2006

AG v Pratkunas

Between:

Attorney General

Applicant

And

Ludmilla Borisnova Pratkunas

Respondent

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S23

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S25

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 PART II

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 (APPLICATION OF PART II) ORDER 2000 SI 474/2000

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S26

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S26(5)

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S29(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S4(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S6

CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 1997 ART 158

CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 1997 ART 159

FEDERAL LAW NO 162-FZ 2003 (RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S37

AG v SKRIPAKOVA UNREP SUPREME 24.4.2006 2006 IESC 68 EX TEMPORE

Judgment of

Mr Justice Michael Peart

1 The Russian Federation has sought the extradition of the respondent, who is an Estonian national, by Request dated 21^st March 2006. An earlier Request dated 29^th January 2004 had been sent but it is the later Request on foot of which the present application is proceeding. I am satisfied that this Request was duly transmitted pursuant to the provisions of s. 23 of the Extradition Act, 1965 as amended ("the Act"), and that it has been supported by the various documents and material referred to in s. 25 of the Act. I am also satisfied that the person who is before the Court is the person whose extradition has been requested, and no issue to the contrary has been raised.

2 Part II of the Act was applied to Russian Federation by Statutory Instrument 474/2000.

3 As required by s. 26 of the Act, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has by Certificate dated 13^th April 2006 certified that he received the Request dated 21^st March 2006 on the 31^st March 2006.

4 On the 25^th April 2006 a Warrant of Arrest was issued by this Court, and on the following day the respondent was duly arrested on foot of same and brought before the Court as required by s. 26(5) of the Act. She was remanded from time to time thereafter, on bail, pending the hearing of the application for her extradition.

5 Section 29 (1) of the Act, as amended, sets out a number of matters about which this Court must be satisfied before it may grant the order of extradition sought. That section provides as follows:

"29.-(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,

6 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."

7 No objection or issue has been raised by the respondent in relation to the documents which support this application, or the other matters referred to in this sub-section, and I am satisfied that the provisions of that section have been complied with.

8 I am also satisfied that the offence of fraud which is alleged to have been committed by the respondent and for which her extradition is sought so that she can be prosecuted and the full details of which are set forth in the documents supporting the Request for extradition is an offence which corresponds to at least one offence in this State according to the criteria for assessing correspondence provided by s. 10 of the Act, as amended, namely that the acts alleged against the respondent would, if committed in this State on the date on which the Request for extradition is made, constitute an offence, and that the offence in question is punishable in both this State and the requesting state "by imprisonment for a maximum period of at least one year or a more severe penalty…".

9 There is no need to set out the details of the offence alleged against the respondent, but I can say without any doubt, and no issue is raised in that regard by the respondent, that if what has been alleged against the respondent was to have been done by her here on the date of the Request it would give rise to an offence of theft under s. 4(1) of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud offences) Act,2001 and to an offence of making a gain or causing loss by deception under s. 6 of the same Act. Each offence would satisfy the minimum gravity requirement to which I have referred, and it is clear that this is satisfied also under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

10 Subject to addressing the issues which have been raised by the respondent, I am satisfied that all the requirements of the Act have been complied with and that the extradition of the respondent must he ordered.

11 The issues being raised appear firstly in an affidavit which was sworn by the applicant on the 29^th September 2006. Put briefly, she states in that affidavit that in October 2000 she...