Attorney General v Skripakova

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMurray C.J.
Judgment Date24 April 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] IESC 68
CourtSupreme Court
Date24 April 2006

[2006] IESC 68

THE SUPREME COURT

Murray C.J.

Geoghegan J.

Kearns J.

14/05
Attorney General v Skripakova

BETWEEN

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
APPLICANT
-v-
TATJANA SKRIPAKOVA
RESPONDENT
1

Murray C.J.delivered on the 24th day of April 2006,by

2

This is an appeal by the Attorney General, the applicant, against the judgment and Order of the High Court dated 16 th November, 2004 refusing an Order to extradite the respondent to the Republic of Latvia pursuant to the provisions of Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965. The grounds upon which the application for the respondent's extradition was refused were based on s. 11(2) of the Extradition Act, 1965. It provides that an extradition shall not be granted "...if there are substantial grounds for believing that a request for extradition for an ordinary criminal offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion or that a persons position may be prejudiced far any of these reasons". The conclusion of the High Court, on the facts before it, was that there were substantial grounds for believing that the respondent's position may be prejudiced by reason of her Russian nationality.

3

In reaching his conclusion the learned trial judge expressed the view that the words "substantial grounds" in the section had the same meaning as the criteria applied in relation to applications for leave to apply for judicial review. It was he held. "a relatively low threshold" and went on to conclude "So, I do not have to believe them, it seems to me. If the case is made out that there are substantial grounds, it is not that I must accept them as positive, I must accept that the case may be made, and the case has been made".

4

There are two essential grounds in relation to the appeal concerning that aspect of the learned trial judge's decision, namely, whether he was correct in applying that criteria in determining the issue under s. 11(2) of the Act of 1965 and, secondly, whether the onus was on the respondent in extradition proceedings to establish an exception to the obligation to extradite a person under the Act when such grounds are relied upon and to establish them as a matter of probability. The other issue in the case concerns the ruling of the trial judge on the admissibility of an affidavit tendered by the applicant at the time when the case came on for hearing before the learned High Court Judge. Leave to introduce the affidavit was refused.

5

The particular circumstances were that having been arrested on foot of a warrant issued under the Act of 1965, the respondent, who states that she is of Russian nationality and ethnicity, filed two affidavits in which, inter alia, she gave her account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged offence, including her relationship with the alleged victim and stating that she is innocent of the alleged offence. With regard to the issues in this appeal she made certain statements in those affidavits relating to alleged discrimination and prejudice in Latvia towards persons of Russian nationality or ethnicity. Those statements were as follows:

6

(a) At paragraph 2 of her first affidavit sworn 4 th March, 2004. she stated "Since the demise of the old Soviet Union, those in Latvia who are ethnically and / or by nationality Russian have been the victims of considerable discrimination on the part of the State authorities there. I respectfully suggest that the application herein for my extradition is an illustration of this phenomenon, all of my accusers being ethnic Latvians".

7

(b) At paragraph 6 of the same affidavit she suggests that it is oppressive to seek her extradition some years after the alleged offence without any explanation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Busjeva
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 27 March 2007
    ...incarceration in substandard conditions breach of human rights - Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439 followed, Attorney General v Skripakova [2006] IESC 68, (Unrep, SC, 24/4/2006) applied - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), s 4A, Part III - Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Euro......
  • O (S) and Others v Minister for Justice
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 October 2010
    ...Env LR 298; R v Cotswold DC (1998) 75 P & CR 515; In re Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 360; AG v Skripakova [2006] IESC 68; The State (Keegan) v Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642 and O'Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 IR 39 considered - Immigr......
  • Attorney General v O'Gara
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 May 2012
    ...783; Ellis v O'Dea (No 2) [1991] 1 IR 251; Minister for Justice v Mazurek [2011] IEHC 204, (Unrep, Edwards J, 13/5/2011); AG v Skripakova [2006] IESC 68, (Unrep, SC, 24/4/2006) and Minister for Justice v Altaravicius [2006] IESC 23, [2006] 3 IR 148 applied - Miklis v Deputy Prosecutor Gene......
  • Attorney General v Martin
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 2 October 2012
    ...impaired’ (emphasis added by the applicant). 9.3 The principle was recently re-stated by Murray C.J. in Attorney General v. Skripakova [2006] IESC 68, (Unreported, ex tempore, Supreme Court, 24th April, 2006). The Supreme Court held that, once the conditions under the Act of 1965, concernin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT