Lanigan v Central Authority

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice White
Judgment Date11 November 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] IEHC 682
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[2014 No. 6374 P.]
Date11 November 2016

[2016] IEHC 682

THE HIGH COURT

White Michael J.

[2014 No. 6374 P.]

BETWEEN
FRANCIS LANIGAN
PLAINTIFF
AND
CENTRAL AUTHORITY, MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEFENDANTS
AND
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

AND

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
NOTICE PARTIES

Extradition – S. 142 of the Extradition Act 2003 – Practice & Procedures – O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Dismissal of proceedings – Lack of cause of action – Order for surrender – Legality of the order for surrender – Abuse of process of law – European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 – Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002

Facts: The defendants by way of the present application sought an order for dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The plaintiff too had a filed a motion for dismissal of the said application and seeking liberty to amend the statement of claim. The plaintiff objected to the manner in which the High Court conducted its hearing under s. 16 and s. 20 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 while making an order for the surrender of the plaintiff on foot of the execution of the European Arrest Warrant by the requesting state. The plaintiff argued that he wanted to cross-examine the officials of the requesting state pertaining to certain documents admitted by the High Court; however, he was unable to do so as the proceedings were inquisitorial in nature.

Mr. Justice White granted an order for the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. The Court held that the surrender procedure empowered the High Court to consider and act on the material which was not verified by way of cross-examination. The Court held that the manner in which the High Court conducted its hearing and issues concerning admissibility of evidence could not be a ground to certify an appeal. The Court found that the submissions made by the plaintiff in the amended statement of claim were replica of the issues that had already been litigated. The Court opined that learned High Court Judge had regards to the Council Framework Decisions 2002 while making the impugned order for the surrender of the plaintiff and thus, there was no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice White delivered on the 11th day of November, 2016
1

The Defendants have issued a motion of 21st August, 2015, originally returnable for 19th October, 2015, seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) An order pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts dismissing the Plaintiff's claim on the grounds, inter alia, that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or that the said claim is frivolous or vexatious.

(ii) Further and in the alternative, an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court dismissing the Plaintiff's claim as failing to disclose any cause of action known to law and/or that the said claim is unsustainable and/or bound to fail in law.

(iii) Further and/or, in the alternative to the foregoing, an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court dismissing the Plaintiff's claim as being an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.

(iv) An order providing for all necessary and/or incidental directions in relation to this application.

The motion was grounded on the affidavit of Hugh Dockery, Solicitor.

2

In response, the Plaintiff issued a motion returnable for 16th November, 2015, seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Dismiss the Defendants' strike out application on the grounds, inter alia, stated in paras. 1 – 7 of the reply to the defence entered therein.

(ii) Liberty to amend the Statement of Claim by adding at para. 20(A) and expanding para. 21(2) in the manner notified to the defendants.

(iii) Fix a deadline for the conclusion of any interlocutory applications that either party may wish to make and on a provisional basis fix as early a trial date as is reasonably possible.

3

This motion was grounded on the affidavit of Padraig O'Donovan, Solicitor, for the applicant, sworn on 13th October, 2015.

4

Before the substantive hearing of the matter commenced in this Court on Thursday, 10th March, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a further motion returnable for 10th March, 2016, seeking further liberty to amend the Statement of Claim by adding paras. 8(A), 8(B), 18(A), 18(B), 18(C), 18(D), 18(E), 18(F) 18(G) and amending paras. 19, 19(A), 20(A) and 21. This motion was grounded on the affidavit of Padraig O'Donovan, Solicitor, sworn on 1st March, 2016.

5

At para. 6, Mr. O'Donovan stated:-

'I believe the need and desirability for the amendments is readily apparent from the pleadings but, in particular, I beg to refer to the significant development of the publication in November 2015 of the "Report on Unannounced Inspection of Maghaberry Prison" wherein as highlighted in the proposed amendments, the prison, inter alia, was deemed not to be safe.'

6

All three motions were heard on 10th, 11th 16th March and 19th April, and judgment was reserved.

7

The proceedings, the subject matter of the application, were issued by Plenary Summons on 23rd July, 2014, seeking the following relief:-

'The Plaintiff's claim is that insofar as the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, has introduced an inquisitorial and sui generis procedure that permits departure from fundamental norms of fair procedure, as particularised in para. 21 of the Statement of Claim herein and also unfairly restricts the right of appeal, it is repugnant to the Constitution and contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights, and that the Plaintiff's surrender to the UK, as sought in related proceedings [2003/1EXT] should not be permitted.'

8

The Summons was served with the Statement of Claim on the Defendants on 11th December, 2014.

The History of the European Arrest Warrant Proceedings.
9

John Meehan, a District Judge, (Magistrates Courts of Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, Northern Ireland) issued and signed a warrant pursuant to s. 142 of the Extradition Act 2003, applicable to Northern Ireland and designated as a European Arrest Warrant seeking the return of the Plaintiff to stand trial in Northern Ireland in respect of two warrants of arrest issued on 17th December, 2012, by a District Judge (Magistrates Courts in Northern Ireland in respect of one offence of murder and one offence of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life).

10

The warrant certified:-

(i) That pursuant to s. 142(6)a of the Extradition Act 2003, that the conduct constituting the extradition offence of murder as specified in this warrant falls within the European Framework list, that the conduct constituting the extradition offence of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life does not fall within the European Framework List.

(ii) Pursuant to s. 142(6)b of the Extradition Act 2003, that the extradition offences specified in this warrant are not extra-territorial offences.

(iii) Pursuant to s. 142(6)c of the Extradition Act 2003, that the maximum punishment which may be imposed on conviction or indictment for murder is imprisonment for life and the maximum punishment which may be imposed on conviction on indictment for possession of a firearm with intent to danger life is imprisonment for life.

11

The charges relate to the murder of John Stephen Knocker who was shot dead in the car park of a Dungannon Hotel, on 31st May, 1998,

12

The European Arrest Warrant was endorsed by the High Court in this jurisdiction on 7th January, 2013, for execution by An Garda Síochána. The Plaintiff was arrested on foot of the European Arrest Warrant on 16th January, 2013, and was brought before the High Court and remanded in custody. He opposed a surrender to the issuing State and filed points of objection for that purpose. Subsequent to arrest, the case was adjourned to the Extradition List in this Court on 29th January, 2013, and a date was fixed for the purposes of a hearing pursuant to s. 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, in accordance with s. 13(5)(a) of the Act.

13

The substantive hearing in respect of the application commenced before the High Court on 30th June, 2014, and continued on 3rd and 4th July, 2014. Subsequent to this hearing date, the application was adjourned to 7th October, 2014, and then further adjourned to 17th November, 2014, when the presiding judge, Murphy J. delivered a written preliminary ruling on various procedural evidential issues which arose in the course of the s. 16 hearing. Arising from that judgment, additional information was sought from the issuing State concerning issues which had arisen in light of the preliminary ruling. On 8th December, 2014, additional information from the issuing State was made available to the Court.

14

The Plaintiff then sought a referral of questions of law to the European Court of Justice. The application was adjourned to 15th December, 2014, to allow submissions. On 15th December, 2014, further substantive argument was heard by the High Court. On that date, bail was granted to the Plaintiff on certain terms which were varied by the Court of Appeal in July 2015.

15

On 19th January, 2015, the High Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the length of time the proceedings had taken. On 1st July, 2015, the Courts of Justice of the European Union heard the reference and on 16th July, 2015, delivered its ruling. On 20th July, 2015, the High Court conducted a further hearing pursuant to the s. 16 application to consider additional information received from the United Kingdom authorities.

16

On 2nd September, 2015, Murphy J. delivered a written judgment on the s. 16 application and directed that:-

'the Court being satisfied that the provisions of s. 16 have been complied with and that the court is not required to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Lanigan v Central Authority
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 8 de fevereiro de 2018
    ...as being an abuse of the process.’ 14 It is important to appreciate that White J.'s decision ( Lanigan v. Central Authority and others [2016] IEHC 682) was given in the context of an application brought by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiff's claim rather than at the conclusion of a s......
  • Lanigan v Governor of Cloverhill Prison, Lanigan v Central Authority The Minister for Justice and Equality Ireland, Lanigan v Governor of Cloverhill Prison
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 26 de julho de 2017
    ...AFL 14/2017 – Lanigan v. Central Authority and others 31 This is a 'leapfrog' application relating to the order of White J. (judgment at [2016] IEHC 682; order perfected on the 9th December, 2016) dismissing the plenary proceedings referred to above. The order was made on foot of a motion ......
  • Lanigan v Central Authority Minister for Justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 16 de janeiro de 2019
    ...as being an abuse of the process. 14. It is important to appreciate that White J's decision ( Lanigan v. Central Authority and others [2016] IEHC 682) was given in the context of an application brought by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiff's claim rather than at the conclusion of a sub......

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