Farrell v Superintendent of Milford Garda Station, Maguire v Superintendent of Letterkenny Garda Station
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Kennedy |
| Judgment Date | 01 November 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IECA 278 |
| Date | 01 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | Neutral Citation Number: [2019] IECA 278 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
[2019] IECA 278
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Birmingham P.
Edwards J.
Kennedy J.
Neutral Citation Number: [2019] IECA 278
Record Number: 2019 85; 2019 86
European arrest warrant – Disclosure of information – Judicial review – Appellants seeking disclosure of information – Whether there was an explicit and unambiguous duty on the respondents to provide the information to the appellants on the grounds of fair procedures
Facts: The appellants, Mr Farrell and Mr Maguire, were arrested on 23rd March 2017 on foot of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued for the purposes of prosecuting them for the alleged offences of attempted murder of a member of the PSNI and possession of explosive substances with intent to endanger life. The appellants sought disclosure of information gathered during their detention on 18th June 2015 including, inter alia, details of any samples taken or items seized, copies of statements made during the investigation and any audio or video recordings made in the course of detention, in order to advance their opposition to the EAW proceedings. It was the appellants’ case that the Northern Ireland prosecution was predicated, at least in part, on this information. Following a refusal to grant this information, the appellants sought leave to proceed by way of judicial review on 25th July 2017. Leave was granted and the hearing proceeded in December 2018. The appellants sought the following reliefs before the High Court: (i) an order of mandamus requiring the first respondents, the Superintendent of Milford Garda Station and the Superintendent of Letterkenny Garda Station, to reply to their request for information in relation to and arising from their detention in Milford Garda Station/Letterkenny Garda Station on 18th/19th June 2015 and to furnish them with information to which they were entitled; (ii) an order of mandamus requiring the first respondents to provide the information requested by the appellants pursuant to the provisions of EU Directive 13/2012. In her written judgment of 11th February 2019, Donnelly J refused the reliefs sought by the appellants. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgments and orders of Donnelly J. The appellants claimed that they were entitled to receive all the information sought for the purposes of opposing surrender under the EAW. The appellants made a number of similar arguments regarding, inter alia, their entitlement to the materials and information as a matter of fair procedures and under EU Directive 13/2012, the potential infringement of the right to silence and the entitlement to recordings under s. 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007.
Held by Kennedy J that the trial judge was entirely correct in finding that the appellants had not demonstrated that there was an explicit and unambiguous duty on the respondents to provide the information to the appellants on the grounds of fair procedures in advance of arguments to be advanced of the EAW proceedings. Kennedy J was satisfied that the trial judge was correct in finding that there was no evidence that the appellants’ rights under the Directive would not be available to them in the requesting State should they be surrendered. Kennedy J was satisfied that there was no merit to the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the transfer of evidence pursuant to mutual assistance requests to the PSNI resulted in an interference with the proceedings which was unconstitutional.
Kennedy J held that the appeals would be dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.
These two appeals have the same factual background and raise the same issues so they may be conveniently dealt with in the same judgment. The appellants seek to appeal against judgments and orders of the High Court (Donnelly J.) dated 11th February 2019 refusing to grant relief by way of judicial review.
The relevant factual background is set out fully in the High Court judgment, but the salient facts are as follows: The appellants were arrested on March 23rd 2017 on foot of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued for the purposes of prosecuting them for the alleged offences of attempted murder of a member of the PSNI and possession of explosive substances with intent to endanger life.
The EAW states that these offences are alleged to have been committed on 18th June 2015 in Northern Ireland. It further alleges that the perpetrators of the offences were disturbed at the scene and that two vehicles were observed by the police in Northern Ireland travelling away from the scene at high speed. Later that same night the appellants were arrested in Killygordon, Co. Donegal pursuant to s.30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 on suspicion of membership of an unlawful organisation. Mr Maguire was taken to Letterkenny Garda Station and Mr Farrell was taken to Milford Garda Station. The appellants' clothing was seized, and photographs, fingerprints and buccal swabs were taken. The appellants were interviewed and later released without charge.
On 10th March 2017, the European Arrest Warrant was issued by an issuing judicial authority of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the appellants were subsequently arrested. The proceedings under appeal came about as the appellants sought disclosure of information gathered during their detention on 18th June 2015 including, inter alia, details of any samples taken or items seized, copies of statements made during the investigation and any audio or video recordings made in the course of detention, in order to advance their opposition to the EAW proceedings. It is the appellants' case that the Northern Ireland prosecution is predicated, at least in part, on this information.
Following a refusal to grant this information, the appellants sought leave to proceed by way of judicial review on July 25th, 2017. Leave was granted and the hearing proceeded in December 2018. The appellants sought the following reliefs before the High Court:-
(i) An order of mandamus requiring the first respondent to reply to the applicant's request for information in relation to and arising from his detention in Milford Garda Station/Letterkenny Garda Station on 18th/19th June, 2015 and to furnish him with information to which he is entitled.
(ii) An order of mandamus requiring the first respondent to provide the information requested by the applicant pursuant to the provisions of EU Directive 13/2012.
In her written judgment of 11th February 2019, Donnelly J. refused the reliefs sought by the appellants.
The trial judge considered the submissions of the appellants under three headings, namely;
a) Fair procedures and right to information;
b) EU Directive 13/2012 and;
c) Interference with the proceedings.
The primary argument on behalf of the appellants is that the evidence garnered in this jurisdiction during the appellants' detention pursuant to s.30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 will be used, at least in part, at trial in Northern Ireland. The appellants contend that only the courts in this jurisdiction can protect their constitutional rights. While no reference is made to a violation of any specific constitutional right during the detention under s.30, the argument is made that in order to vindicate their constitutional rights, disclosure of the information is essential. The appellants assert that the information sought may permit issues to be raised concerning the arrest and detention pursuant to s.30 in the context of objection to surrender on foot of the EAW.
The appellants assert an entitlement to the information sought as a matter of fair procedures and moreover, contend that withholding the information sought occasions a breach of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2012/13/EU of 22nd May 2012 regarding the Right to Information in Criminal Proceedings.
Mr Farrell contends that certain of the materials about which information was sought were transferred to the requesting State following a mutual assistance request pursuant to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959. These items were furnished in the course of the judicial review proceedings without notice to the appellant who claims that such transfer was inappropriate in the circumstances.
In short, the appellants' claim is that they are entitled to receive all the information sought for the purposes of opposing surrender under the European Arrest Warrant.
The trial judge noted that a discrete argument arose regarding the recordings of interview sought by the appellants. This concerned section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2007 which provides as follows:-
“(1) Where a person is before a court charged with an offence, a copy of any recording of the questioning of the person by a member of the Garda Síochána while he or she was detained in a Garda Síochána station, or such questioning elsewhere, in connection with the investigation of the offence shall be given to the person or his or her legal representative only if the court so directs and subject to such conditions (if any) as the court may specify.
(2) A recording referred to in subsection (1) of the questioning of a person shall not be given to the person by the Garda Síochána except in accordance with a direction or order of a court made under that subsection or otherwise and Regulation 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (Electronic Recording of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Minister for Justice and Equality v Farrell, The Minister for Justice and Equality v Maguire
...Kennedy J. in Farrell v. Superintendent of Milford Garda Station & Anor, Maguire v. Superintendent of Letterkenny Garda Station & Anor [2019] IECA 278). The decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal indicated that the appropriate procedure for litigating whether or not the appellants......
-
Minister for Justice & Equality v Wojciech Orlowski
...IEHC 662 and Kennedy J in Farrell v Superintendent of Milford Garda Station, Maguire v Superintendent of Letterkenny Garda Station [2019] IECA 278. Binchy J held that the respondent had not reached the very high threshold of satisfying the Court that, if surrendered, there were substantial ......
-
M.B. v Hse
...duty imposed upon the body against whom the order is sought (for recent iteration see Farrell v. Superintendent of Milford Garda Station [2019] IECA 278). It follows from my finding that there is no statutory obligation on the HSE to create a further assessment report following assessment r......