Lloyd v Judge Hogan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Kelly |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1996 |
| Neutral Citation | 1996 WJSC-HC 1605 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [1995 No. 321 J.R.] |
| Date | 30 April 1996 |
1996 WJSC-HC 1605
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
THEFT ACT 1969 S8(2) (NI)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S43(3)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S43(3)(b)
CHANDLER V DPP 1962 44 CAR 347
OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT 1911 S1(1)
SHANNON V IRELAND 1984 IR 548
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S43
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 PART III
Synopsis:
CRIMINAL LAW
Extradition
Convict - Arrest - Warrant - Endorsement - Purpose - Northern Ireland warrant endorsed by Commissioner for execution within the State - Validity of endorsement dependent upon purpose of the arrest - Applicant convicted and imprisoned in Northern Ireland - Failure of applicant to return to prison after temporary release - Warrant issued commanding arrest of applicant and his appearance before Northern Ireland Court so that he might be returned to prison - Endorsement prohibited unless purpose of arrest was to enable convict to be taken to a place where he was to undergo imprisonment - Extradition Act, 1965 (No. 17), ss. 43, 47 - (1995/321 JR - Kelly J. - 30/4/96) - [1996] 2 ILRM 313
|Lloyd v. Hogan|
WORDS AND PHRASES
"Purpose of the arrest"
Extradition - Warrant - Convict - Arrest - Endorsement of warrant for execution in the State - Northern Ireland warrant commanded arrest of convict and that he be brought before Northern Ireland court so that an order might be sought for his return to prison to continue to undergo detention under his sentence of imprisonment - Extradition Act, 1965 (No. 17), ss. 43, 47 - (1995/321 JR - Kelly J. - 30/4/96) - [1996] 2 ILRM 313
|Lloyd v. Hogan|
Judgment of delivered the 30th day of April,1996. Mr. Justice Kelly
On the 2nd May, 1995 the Applicant was convicted at Belfast Crown Court of assault with intent to rob contrary to Section 8(2) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland), 1969.
On the same day, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and six months for that offence.
On the 31st August, 1995 he was temporarily released from Magilligan Prison until the 2nd September, 1995 for the purpose of home leave. He failed to return to prison from that home leave.
On the 15th September, 1995 Resident Magistrate Desmond Lawrence Perry issued a warrant for his arrest. That warrant, inter alia, recited the facts already stated in this judgment and went on to provide asfollows:-
"This is to command you, to whom this warrant is addressed, to arrest the said John Joseph Lloyd and bring him before a Magistrates Court for the County Court Division of Londonderry, Northern Ireland, so that an Order may be sought that he be returned to prison to continue to undergo detention under the said sentence of two years and six monthsimprisonment."
That warrant was addressed to the Superintendent of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at Coleraine.
On the same day, a certificate was issued by the competent officer that the offence in respect of which the Applicant was convicted was by the law of Northern Ireland an indictable one. Again on the 15th September, 1995 an Affidavit was sworn by Detective Constable Geoffrey Hamilton to the effect that he was present and witnessed the signing of the warrant issued by the Resident Magistrate.
On the 25th September, 1995 the second named Respondent authorised the execution of the warrant in the State by any member of the GardaSiochana.
On the 9th October, 1995 the Applicant was arrested on foot of this warrant at Thomas Street, Dublin. He was taken before the District Court and was remanded in custody.
On the 1st November, 1995 an application was made before the first named Respondent to extradite the Applicant on foot of the warrant. Each of the documents already referred to in this judgment was placed before the first named Respondent. Evidence was given by a member of the Garda Siochana that he arrested the Applicant at Thomas Street and evidence of identity was given by Detective Constable Hamilton.
Legal submissions were made to the first named Respondent on behalf of the Applicant, none of which were successful. He ordered the extradition of the Applicant.
On the 13th December, 1995 this Court (Laffoy J.) gave leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review on the grounds set forth in herOrder.
The Applicant seeks an Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the first named Respondent of the 1st November, 1995 together with a declaration that his detention under the extradition order is unlawful. The grounds upon which these reliefs are sought are as follows. The Applicant contends:-
1. That the endorsement on the warrant by the second named Respondent was made ultra vires the powers of the Commissioner of An Garda Siochana as set out in Section 43(3) of the Extradition Act, 1965.
2. The Order was made ultra vires.
3. The Order was made in breach of the Applicant's right to natural justice and/or constitutional justice and/or fair procedures.
4. There is no correspondence between the offence upon which the Applicant's extradition is sought and the law of this jurisdiction.
On the hearing before me which took place on Monday the 22nd April, 1996, grounds 3 and 4 as set out above were not proceeded with.
The case really resolves itself down to a nett point, namely, whether the endorsement of the warrant issued by the Northern Irish authorities by the second named Respondent was ultra vires his powers provided for in Section 43(3) of the Extradition Act, 1965as amended (the Act). If such was the case, the Applicant claims that the first named Respondent also acted ultra vires in ordering hisextradition.
Section 43 of the Act in its amended form reads as follows:-
2 "(1). Where -
(a) a warrant has been issued by a judicial authority in a place in relation to which this part applies for the arrest of a person accused or convicted of an offence under the law of that place being an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction by imprisonment for a maximum period of at least six months, and,
(b) on production of the warrant to the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana it appears to the Commissioner that the person named or described therein may be found in the State or may intend to enter the State, the Commissioner shall, subject to the provisions of this part, endorse the warrant for execution.
3 (2). The endorsement shall be in the following form:
"I, AB, Commissioner or Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of the Garda Siochana hereby authorise the execution of this warrant in the State by any member of the Garda Siochana
Signed
Dated
2 (3). A warrant for the arrest of a person convicted of an offence under the law of a place in relation to which this part applies shall not be endorsed under this section unless the purpose of the arrest is to enable him-
(a) to be brought before a Court in that place for sentence in respect of the conviction, or
(b) to be taken to a place where he has to undergo imprisonment under such a sentence, not being imprisonment in default of the payment of a fine or other sum."
The Applicant contends that it was not open to the second named Respondent to authorise the execution of the Northern Irish warrant because its terms do not state that the Applicant upon arrest is "to be taken to a place where he is to undergo imprisonment". Rather, the Resident Magistrate's warrant required that upon arrest, Mr. Lloyd was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial