Gibson v Ag

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 21 October 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] IEHC 340
• Docket Number: Record Number: 2003 No. 559 SP
• Court: High Court
• Date: 21 October 2004

[2004] IEHC 340

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: 2003 No. 559 SP

[2004] IRLHC 340

GIBSON v. AG

Between:

Peter Geoffrey Gibson

Plaintiff

And

The Attorney General

Defendant

Citations:

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)(bbb)

LYNCH V AG & ORS 2003 3 IR 416 2004 1 ILRM 129

Abstract:

Criminal law - Extradition - Delay - Practice and procedure - Adverse publicity - Whether unjust to deliver up plaintiff - Whether extradition should not be ordered by reason of lapse of time - Extradition Act, 1965.

Facts: The plaintiff had been charged with an offence in the UK allegedly committed in 2001. A warrant was subsequently issued for his arrest and the plaintiff was brought before the Irish Courts in 2002. The warrant in question was deemed to be insufficient, extradition was not ordered and the plaintiff was released from custody. A further warrant was issued by the UK Courts but was drafted in the same terms as the original. Another warrant was therefore issued and an extradition order was made by Kearns J in December, 2003. The plaintiff appealed against the making of this order and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The plaintiff sought relief under section 50 of the Extradition Act, 1965 against the making of this order. The plaintiff challenged his impending extradition on the basis of the lapse of time that had occurred from the date of the alleged offence, a period of three years and eight months. It was submitted that together with other exceptional circumstances it would be unjust, invidious and oppressive to order the extradition of the plaintiff. Complaints were also made regarding adverse publicity which the plaintiff had received in the media.

Held by Peart J in granting the extradition order. The newspaper material about which the plaintiff had complained would not be in circulation in Leeds where the plaintiff was due to be tried. As such arguments regarding adverse publicity did not need determination as the plaintiff had fallen at the first hurdle, that is, the lapse of time that had occurred was not of itself exceptional. While there had been a certain amount of culpable delay on behalf of the authorities while they got their paperwork in order it could not be said that the overall delay was exceptional. It could not be said that it would be unjust, invidious and oppressive to order the extradition of the plaintiff.

Reporter: R.F.

Judgment of

Mr Justice Michael Peart

1 This is an application by the plaintiff for an order under Section 50 of the Extradition Act,1965(as amended) to the effect that he ought not to be returned to the United Kingdom under the terms of an Order of Mr Justice Kearns made on the 17^th December 2003 under Section 47 of the said Act. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that because of the delay which has occurred to date since the issue of the first warrant for his arrest by Leeds Crown Court on the 2^nd January 2002, it would now be unjust, oppressive or invidious for him to be delivered up to the authorities in the United Kingdom pursuant to the said Order.

2 It is relevant to state that the offence with which the plaintiff is charged in the UK is alleged to have been committed on the 7^th February 2001. A Warrant for his arrest was issued by Leeds Crown Court on the 2^nd January 2002 and endorsed for execution in this jurisdiction on the 3^rd January 2002. The plaintiff was duly arrested here on foot of that warrant and brought before the Dublin Metropolitan District Court which on the 15^th February 2002 refused to make the requested order under Section 47 by reason of the warrant containing insufficient particulars of the offence to establish correspondence with an offence in this jurisdiction. The plaintiff was thereupon released from custody.

3 On the 13^th September 2002 a further warrant was issued by Leeds Crown Court and when it arrived here it was noticed that it was in precisely the same terms as that in respect of which the order had been refused in February 2002. Following advice from the authorities here, the British authorities applied for yet another warrant from Leeds Crown Court and such issued on the 20^th March 2003. This warrant was endorsed for execution here on the 7^th May 2003 and the plaintiff was duly arrested by a member of An Garda Siochana on the 8^th May 2003, whereupon he was brought before the High Court and remanded pending the hearing of the application for an order under Section 47 of the said Act. Eventually on the 17^th December 2003 the said Order under Section 47 was made by Kearns J. The plaintiff appealed against the making of that order to the Supreme Court who dismissed the said appeal on the l0^th June 2004. The plaintiff had commenced the present proceedings under Section 50 by Special Summons dated 22^nd December 2003, and this accounts for the fact that this application was ready to be heard before me on the 8^th October 2004.

4 The plaintiff's application is grounded on his own affidavit sworn on the 27^th April 2004. As appears therefrom the offence for which he is ordered to be returned to the United Kingdom dates back to February 2001, a period of some three years and eight months from then to the present date. The plaintiff submits that this is the length of time to which this court should have regard when adjudicating upon the issue as to whether in view of the delay it would be unjust, oppressive or invidious to return him to the United Kingdom to face his trial.

5 It is pointed out that following his arrest on foot of the initial faulty warrant the plaintiff spent a total of about 7 weeks in custody awaiting the determination of the first application for an order under Section 47 of the...