Jelena Voznuka v Governor of Dóchas Centre, Mountjoy Prison

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham C.J.
• Judgment Date: 27 June 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] IESC 33
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 27 June 2013

[2013] IESC 33

THE SUPREME COURT

Denham C.J.

Murray J.

MacMenamin J.

Appeal No. 036/2012

Voznuka v Governor of the Dochas Centre Mountjoy Prison

Between/

Jelena Voznuka

Applicant/Respondent

and

Governor of the Dóchas Centre, Mountjoy Prison

Respondent/Appellant

Extradition – Unlawful detention - Mandatory release – European Arrest Warrant - Surrender - – Right to personal liberty - Time limits - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 - Application for release under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution

Facts: These proceedings concerned an appeal brought by the appellant, the Governor of the Dóchas Centre, Mountjoy Prison, against a decision of the High Court ordering the release of the respondent, Jelena Voznuka. The respondent was the subject of a European Arrest Warrant issued by Latvia that was issued in September 2007. The respondent refused to surrender to Latvian authorities and so the matter was brought before the High Court for determination which resulted in an order for the respondent”s surrender being made. The respondent appealed the decision and was granted bail in the interim. When the matter came before the appeal court on the 18 ^th November 2011, the respondent did not appear therefore the appeal was struck out and a warrant for her arrest was made. The respondent was subsequently arrested and committed to the appellant”s custody on the 5 ^th January 2012.

On the 6 ^th January 2012, the respondent applied to the High Court for release pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Irish Constitution, claiming that the time limit for detention set out in s. 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (the 2003 Act’) had expired. It was said that under this section, a High Court order for surrender begins 15 days after it is made, thereafter the relevant party must be surrendered to the relevant authority within 10 days. The respondent therefore claimed that the order for surrender became active 15 days after the appeal was struck out (due to the High Court order being stayed until the appeal was concluded) with the window for surrender being the following 10 days. As the respondent was arrested on the 5th January, outside this time frame, it was argued that she should be released. The High Court acceded to the application. The appellant subsequently sought an appeal of this decision, claiming the trial judge had erred in concluding that it was mandatory for the respondent to be released pursuant to s. 16 of the 2003 Act and that the time limit for surrender of the respondent began when the appeal was dismissed.

Held by Denham CJ (with Murray J and MacMenamin J concurring) that the s. 16 of the 2003 Act was unclear in parts. Due to this ambiguity, the court was required to favour an interpretation granting freedom rather than continuing detention where there was doubt. It was held that the respondent”s view on the relevant time limit appeared correct as the time limit began when the order of the High Order was no longer stayed following the appeal, but that under s. 16(7) of the 2003 Act, the High Court may remand the person in custody or on bail for such period as is necessary to effect surrender, unless it considers it would be unjust or oppressive to do so. However, no application had been made to the High Court for this to happen therefore the release of the respondent was mandatory.

Appeal dismissed.

1 Judgment delivered on the 27th day of June 2013, by Denham C.J.

2 1. This is an appeal by the Governor of the Dóchas Centre, Mountjoy Prison, the respondent/appellant, referred to as "the appellant", against the order and judgment of the High Court (McCarthy J.) made and delivered on the 10 ^th January, 2012. Jelena Voznuka, the applicant/respondent, is referred to as "the respondent".

Background - European Arrest Warrant Proceeding

3 2. A European Arrest Warrant was issued in Latvia in September 2007. The respondent was brought before the High Court in proceedings pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended, and at the conclusion of those proceedings on the 23 ^rd April, 2009, the High Court (Peart J.) made an order for the respondent's surrender. The respondent appealed to this Court and was granted bail pending the appeal.

4 3. The respondent's appeal came before this Court on the 18 ^th November, 2010. Neither the respondent nor any legal representatives on her behalf attended in Court. This Court ordered that the appeal be struck out, that the order of the High Court be affirmed, and that the respondent be arrested and detained pending her surrender under the order of the High Court.

5 4. On the 5 ^th January, 2012, the respondent was arrested and committed to the custody of the appellant.

The European Arrest Warrant

6 5. The European arrest warrant in issue relates to one offence, the entering of a premises and the unplugging of the gas supply. It is described as follows:-

"Namely, on August 11, 2005 at 9.00-10.00 a.m. Jelena Voznuka, being aware that living premises at Talsi soseja 31/5-13, Jurmala, are lawfully occupied by Ieva Viktorija Mizane and that she lives therein, Jelena Voznuka deceived the employees of house management company SIA "Jurmalas Namsaimnieks" regarding necessity to unplug the gas supply in the mentioned living premises, in absence of Ieva Viktorija Mizane, while a possibility existed to get into touch with Ieva Viktorija Mizane, without permission of the latter and while there existed no circumstances when immediate getting into apartment would be lawfully based, through intermediation of employees of SIA "Jurmalas Namsaimnieks" who prized up the door locks of mentioned apartment, illegally and against to will of Ieva Viktorija Mizane entered the living premises at Talsi soseja 31/5-13, Jurmala. Hence Jelena Mizane with her illegal actions rudely violated the fundamental interests of leva Viktorija Mizane regarding inviolability of her residential premises, which provides for that nobody has rights to enter a residential premises without lawful grounds and against will of person who lives in the concerned apartment, namely, committed a criminal offence provided for by the 1st Part of 143 ^rd Section of the Criminal Law."

Habeas Corpus Proceedings

7 6. On the 6 ^th January, 2012, an application was made to the High Court (McCarthy J.) pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution.

8 7. The High Court ordered the release of the respondent on the 10 ^th January, 2012, referring to time limits set out in the relevant legislation, and finding that they had been breached in this case.

Notice of Appeal

9 8. The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the following grounds:-

10 (i) The learned trial judge erred in law in concluding that the provisions of s. 16 of the European...