Larkin v O'Dea

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Hamilton C.J.,MRS. JUSTICE DENHAM
• Judgment Date: 20 January 1995
• Neutral Citation: 1995 WJSC-SC 977
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [1994 No. 222 S.C.]
• Date: 20 January 1995

1995 WJSC-SC 977

THE SUPREME COURT

HAMILTON C.J.

COSTELLO P.

O'FLAHERTY J.

BLAYNEY J.

DENHAM J.

222/94

LARKIN v. O'DEA

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN INQUIRY PURSUANT TO

ARTICLE 40 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

BETWEEN:

DANIEL FRANCIS LARKIN

Respondent/Applicant

and

THE GOVERNOR OF ST. PATRICK'SINSTITUTION

Appellant/Respondent

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION ACT, 1965–1967

BETWEEN:

DANIEL FRANCIS LARKIN

Respondent/Applicant

and

EDWARD J. O'DEA

Appellant/Respondent

Citations:

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S52

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S4

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S10

BYRNE V GREY 1988 IR 31

DPP V KENNY 1990 2 IR 110

POLICE & CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1989 UK

SHANNON V IRELAND 1984 IR 548

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 PART III

SHANNON V FANNING 1984 IR 569

CONSTITUTION ART 40

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S11(2)

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S9

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S15

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47(1)

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47(2)

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 PART II

LARKIN V O'DEA UNREP MORRIS 12.5.94

Synopsis:

CONSTITUTION

Personal rights

Liberty - Deprivation - Justification - Absence - Arrest - War rant - Invalidity - Inculpatory statement made during unlawful detention - Evidence inadmissible in the State - Discretion to admit statement in Northern Ireland - Extradition of applicant to Northern Ireland sought - Applicant released from custody - (222/94 - Supreme Court - 20/1/95) 1995 2 I.R. 495 - 1995 2 ILRM 1

|Larkin v. O'Dea|

CRIMINAL LAW

Arrest

Warrant - Validity - Issue - Condition - Statute - Compliance - Failure - Applicant's inculpatory statement made during unlawful detention - Evidence inadmissible in the State - Extradition to Northern Ireland on charge of murder - Discretion to admit such evidence in Northern Ireland - Extradition refused - Application of statute conflicted with constitutional rights of applicant - Extradition Act, 1965, s. 47 - Criminal Justice Act, 1984, s. 10 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 40 - (222/94 - Supreme Court - 20/1/95) - [1995] 2 I.R. 495 - [1995] 2 ILRM 1

|Larkin v. O'Dea|

CRIMINAL LAW

Extradition

Constitution - Inconsistency - Evidence - Admissibility - Procurement - Means - Unlawful arrest of applicant - Inculpatory statement made during unlawful detention - Evidence inadmissible in the State - Discretion to admit statement in Northern Ireland - Extradition of applicant to Northern Ireland sought - Applicant released from custody - (222/94 - Supreme Court - 20/1/95)

|Larkin v. O'Dea|

EVIDENCE

Admissibility

Procurement - Means - Illegality - Arrest - Warrant - Invalidity - Inculpatory statement made during unlawful detention - Evidence inadmissible in the State - Discretion to admit statement in Northern Ireland - Extradition of applicant to Northern Ireland sought - Applicant released from custody - (222/94 - Supreme Court - 20/1/95) - [1995] 2 I.R. 495 - [1995] 2 ILRM 1

|Larkin v. O'Dea|

STATUTE

Provisions

Application - Refusal - Reasons - Constitution - Personal rights - Conflict - Arrest - Warrant - Invalidity - Inculpatory statement made during unlawful detention - Evidence inadmissible in the State - Discretion to admit statement in Northern Ireland - Extradition of applicant to Northern Ireland sought - Applicant released from custody - (222/94 - Supreme Court - 20/1/95)

|Larkin v. O'Dea|

1 Judgment delivered on the 20th day of January 1995by Hamilton C.J.(Costello,O'FLAHERTY,BLAYNEY AGR).

2 This is an appeal brought by the Respondent, Edward J. O'Dea (hereinafter called the "the Appellant") against an order of the High Court made and perfected on the 13th day of June 1994.

3 By this order the High Court refused to order the Applicant/Respondent's extradition to Northern Ireland, ordered that the order of the District Court dated the 26th day of May 1993 be discharged and that the Applicant be released forthwith from custody.

4 The said order of the District Court had been made pursuant to the provisions of Section 47 and 52 of the Extradition Act, 1965and, inter alia, ordered the delivery of the Applicant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent) at Carrickamon in the County of Louth into the custody of a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, being the police force of the place where the warrant recited in the said Order was issued and which is situate in Northern Ireland, for conveyance to the petty Sessions District of Newry and Mourne Northern Ireland County Court Division of Armagh and South Down, Northern Ireland.

5 The same warrant, which was dated the 12th day of February, 1993 had recited that Daniel Francis (otherwise Daniel Francis Gerard, otherwise Daniel) Larkin of 18 BoyleO'Reilly Terrace, Dundalk, Co. Louth, Ireland had on the 22nd day of August, 1991 in the County Court Division of Armagh and South Down, murdered Rose-Marie Moran contrary to common law.

6 The said order had recited that the Respondent had been informed by the Court that he would not be delivered up in pursuance of the said order until the expiration of fifteen days from the date thereof, except with his consent given before a Justice of the District Court or a Peace Commissioner, and also of the right within the said period to have an application made by him or on his behalf for an order of habeas corpus or for his release under Section 50 of the Extradition Act, 1965.

7 On the 9th day of June 1993, the Respondent caused to be issued in the High Court a Special Summons naming the Appellant as Defendant and claiming the Respondent's release pursuant to the provisions of Section 50 of the Extradition Acts 1965to 1987.

8 On the 26th day of July, 1993 Counsel on behalf of the Respondent applied to the High Court pursuant to theprovisions of Article 40, s. 4, sub-s. 2 of the Constitution and the High Court directed the Governor of St. Patrick's Institution, where the Respondent was being detained, to certify in writing the grounds of hisdetention.

9 On the 28th day of July, 1993 the said Governor certified in writing that he held the Applicant in custody in St. Patrick's Institution pursuant to an Order for Delivery at point of Departure (Committal Warrant) of the District Court dated the 26th day of May, 1993 under Sections 47 and 52 of the Extradition Act, 1965committing the Applicant to prision until the date of his delivery into the custody of a member of The Royal Ulster Constabulary.

10 The proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1965and the inquiry pursuant to the provisions of Article 40, s.4, sub-s. 2 of the Constitution were heard together by the High Court and on the 13th day of June 1994 the High Court made the Order referred to at the outset of this judgment.

11 The uncontested facts relating to both sets ofproceedings were as follows:-

12 1. On the 22nd day of August 1991 Rose-Marie Moran was murdered in Clontigora in the County of Antrim.

13 2. Superintendent Thomas Francis Murray of An Garda Siochana, stationed at Dundalk Garda Station, and other members of An Garda Siochana were engaged in the investigation in this jurisdiction of this alleged crime which had been committed in Northern Ireland.

14 3. At 21.45 hours on the 5th day of March 1992 the Respondent herein was arrested at Common Law for the murder of the said Rose-Marie Moran and detained in Dundalk Garda Station pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984until his release on the 6th day of March 1993.

15 4. On the 17th day of June 1992, Superintendent Murray swore an information before Judge Flann Brennan seeking an order for the further arrest of the Respondent pursuant to the provisions of Section 10of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984.

16 5. This sworn information, after reciting the facts relating to the Respondent's previous arrest and detention pursuant to Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984stated that:-

"Since the date of that release further evidence has come into our possession and further enquiries have been made to establish the author of the alleged crime."

17 6. Relying on this sworn information and no other evidence, Flann Brennan, Judge of the District Court, on the 17th day of June 1992 issued an order directed to the Superintendent of the Garda Siochana at Dundalk authorising the arrest of the applicant.

18 7. The Respondent was arrested in pursuance of the said order on the 13th day of August 1993 at common law for the murder of Rose-MarieMoran.

19 8. The Respondent was, subsequent to his arrest, detained in Dundalk Garda Siochana in connection with the said murder and is alleged to have made anumber of written and verbal statements admitting his involvementtherein.

20 9. Upon completion of such interviews, the Respondent was released from custody.

21 It appears from a consideration of the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Morris that two issues arose during the course of the proceedings before him, viz.

22 1. Whether admissions alleged to have been made by the Respondent during the period of his detention subsequent to his arrest on the 13th day of August 1992 would be admissible at his trial either in this jurisdiction or in Northern Ireland, and

23 2. Whether, if the admissions alleged to have been made during the period of the Respondent's detention in Dundalk Garda Station subsequent to this arrest on the 13th day of August, 1992 would be inadmissible in a trial of the Respondent within this jurisdiction, on the grounds that such admissions were obtained in violation of the Respondent'sconstitutional rights, but would be admissible in a trial in Northern Ireland, the Court would be failing to defend and vindicate the Respondent's constitutional rights if it were to permit the Respondent to be extradited to Northern Ireland.

24 Section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984provides that -

"(1) Where a person arrested on...