Lynch v Attorney-General
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | High Court |
Judge | Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie |
Judgment Date | 08 April 2003 |
Neutral Citation | [2003] IEHC 630 |
Date | 08 April 2003 |
[2003] IEHC 630
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)(BBB)
EXTRADITION (AMDT) ACT 1987 S2(B)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 PART III
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47
EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN UNION CONVENTIONS) ACT 2001 S20
EXTRADITION (AMDT) ACT 1994 S12
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47(1)(A)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47(1)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47(2)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47(5)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S48(1)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S48(2)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S48(3)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(1)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)
MCGOLDRICK V AN BORD PLEANALA 1997 1 IR 497
GLOVER, STATE V MCCARTHT 1981 ILRM 47
ABENGLEN PROPERTIES LTD, STATE V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1984 IR 381
SLOAN V CULLIGAN 1992 1 IR 223 1991 ILRM 641
QUINLIVAN V CONROY (NO 2) 2000 3 IR 154
RSC O.49 r6
HARTE V FANNING & MAHON 1988 ILRM 20
HARTE V FANNING 1988 ILRM 75
CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2
MCMAHON V LEAHY 1984 IR 525
ELLIS V O'DEA 1991 IR 251
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S18
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S20
LARCENY ACT 1916 S33
LARCENY ACT 1990 S3
MCCORMACK, STATE V CURRAN 1987 ILRM 225
TRIMBOLE V GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1985 ILRM 465
DPP V BYRNE 1994 2 IR 236
B V DPP 1997 3 IR 140
P (C) V DPP 1999 2 IR 25
B (F) V DPP 2001 IR 656
PEOPLE V SHAW 1982 IR 1
EAST DONEGAL CO-OPERATIVE V AG 1970 IR 317
DOYLE V AN TAOISEACH 1986 ILRM 693
MCDONALD V BORD NA GCON 1965 IR 217
GLOVER V BLN LTD 1973 IR 388
CONSTITUTION ART 40
CONSTITUTION ART 15.4.1
SHANNON V AG 1985 ILRM 449
FUSCO V O'DEA (NO 2) 1998 3 IR 470
M(B) V ASSISTANT CMSR CONROY 2001 2 ILRM 311
CONSTITUTION ART 35
CONSTITUTION ART 36
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
SIMPLE IMPORTS LTD & ANOR V REVENUE CMSR & ORS 2000 2 IR 243
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S43
CUSTOMS LAW (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1876 S205
CUSTOMS & EXCISE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1988 S5(1)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S54
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S55
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S54(1)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S55(1)(A)
GILLESPIE V AG 1976 IR 233
HOLMES, STATE V FURLONG 1967 IR 210
MCFADDEN, STATE V GOVERNOR MOUNTJOY PRISON (NO 1) 1981 ILRM 113
NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S31
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S16
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S17
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S19
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S21
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S22
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S23
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S24
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S25
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S26
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S4
NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S3
NON FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S4
KWOK MING WAN V CONROY 1998 3 IR 527
MCNALLY V O'TOOLE UNREP SUPREME 9.5.2002 2002/20/5181
HANLON V FLEMING 1981 IR 489
LONG V O'TOOLE 2001 IR 548
HEYWOOD V MEMBER IN CHARGE BRIDEWELL GARDA SIOCHANA UNREP SUPREME 15.2.2002 2002/13/3052
CUNNINGHAM V GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1987 ILRM 33
Synopsis:
CRIMINAL LAW
Extradition
Detention - Constitution - Habeas corpus - Delay - Multiplicity of actions practice and procedure - Garda Siochána - Whether applicant should be extradited Whether improper pressure brought to bear on applicant - Extradition Acts, 1965 - 2001 - Bunreacht na hÉireann, 1937 (2002/798JR - McKechnie J - 8/4/2003)
Lynch v Attorney General
The extradition of the applicant to England had been sought on foot of charges relating to an alleged assault. Judicial review proceedings and proceedings under section 50 of the Extradition Act had been initiated in order to challenge the extradition. An issue arose as to whether it was appropriate to have two separate sets of proceedings in train in order to challenge the extradition. It was contended by the applicant that a member of An Garda Siochána had improperly attempted to use the existence of the extradition warrants in order to force the applicant to disclose information relating to other alleged criminal activity committed in this jurisdiction. It was also argued by reason of delay as well as alleged violation of the applicant's constitutional rights that an order of extradition should not be made.
Held by McKechnie in refusing the relief sought and confirming the order of extradition. There was nothing to preclude an applicant in challenging his extradition to issue both judicial review proceedings and proceedings under the Extradition Acts. However in the interests of convenience and practicality both sets of proceedings should be heard by the same court at the same time. There had been an attempt by An Garda Siochána to improperly use the existence of the extradition warrants in order to gain further information from the applicant. Despite this conduct no information had been elicited from the applicant and no constitutional rights had been infringed. All the relevant statutory requirements had been complied with and it had not been established that the applicant's right to an expeditious trial had been breached.
JUDGEMENT of Mr. Justice William M. McKechniedelivered 8thday of April 2003.
In these rendition and related judicial review proceedings there are a number of essential issues which require consideration by this court. These said issues can be summarised as follows:
2 No. 1: Whether a person who is the subject matter of an extradition warrant(s) can procedurally divide his challenge to the domestic processing of such warrant(s) by firstly proceeding with a judicial review application, and thereafter if unsuccessful, by continuing his challenge through the mechanism of s. 50 of the 1965 Extradition Act as amended, or whether both sets of such proceedings, being in existence at the same time, should be disposed ofsimultaneously;
3 No. 2: Whether this court could refuse to extradite a person, if it concluded as a matter of fact, that a member of An GardaSiochána who was investigating unrelated criminal charges against that person had sought to use the existence of an extradition warrant(s) for the purposes of obtaining information or gaining assistance from such person in relation to the alleged criminal activity of third parties, with such attempt(s) however yielding no material benefit to the said Gardaí and resulting in no incrimination of that or any other person;
4 No. 3: Whether a complaint of delay, simpliciter, in the issuing and/or execution of an extradition warrant(s) could attract from this court the remedy of refusal and release, in circumstances where the other requirements of s. 50 (2) (bbb), of the 1965 Act, (as inserted by s. 2(b) of the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987), could not be satisfied,
5 No. 4: Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the respondents have satisfied the requirements of Part III of the aforesaid Act and as a result whether this court, in respect of the applicant, should make an order under s. 47 thereof; and finally,
6 No. 5: Whether if such an order is made the applicant has any defence to his extradition under s. 50 (2) (bbb) of the said Act.
On the 1 st October, 2002 the applicant was arrested on foot of two warrants, which purely for convenience are hereinafter referred to as extradition warrants, rather than warrants under Part III of the 1965 Act. Having been so arrested and brought before the High Court, he was committed to custody to await the processing of the extradition request. His application for bail was refused. Thereafter, two sets of proceedings were instituted on his behalf, the first in point of time was what might be described as conventional judicial review proceedings with leave, in respect thereof, being obtained from this court, (O'Neill J.,) on the 2 nd December, 2002. These proceedings were followed by the issue of a Special Summons dated 4 thDecember, 2002 which had a return date for Tuesday 10 thDecember, 2002. The relief, requested in the judicial review proceedings, and permitted by the order of O'Neill J., included inter alia, an injunction restraining the named respondents, being the Attorney General, the Chief State Solicitor and Patrick O'Toole, an Assistant Commissioner of An Garda Siochána, from pursuing the extradition proceedings, and secondly a declaration that this said request for extradition had been brought in breach of theapplicants" right to a speedy trial and was otherwise an abuse of process. The specialsummons sought the release of Mr. Lynch under s. 50 of the Extradition Acts 1995/ 2001.
3. The statement grounding the application for judicial review was supported by an affidavit of the applicant and one from his solicitor, Mr. Terence Lyons from Messrs Terence Lyons and Company. Both documents exhibited relevant material. The affidavits and exhibits in the s. 50 proceedings were identical to those in the judicial review as was the replying affidavit of Sergeant O'Neill who effected the above mentioned arrest. In addition, a second affidavit was sworn by Sergeant O'Neill in the judicial review proceedings which simply specified, in more detail, the dates of certain relevant steps in the extradition process. Detective Garda Philip Rowe also filed a replying affidavit. This evidence was responded to by further affidavits from the applicant, his mother and his uncle.
4. When the matter first came to trial, it was clear that no proceedings had taken place before the High Court, (formally the District Court) under s. 47 of the Extradition Act 1965, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Lynch v Attorney-General
-
Criminal Assets Bureau v L (M A)
...... RESPONDENT PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S2 PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S3(3) LYNCH v AG & ORS 2003 3 IR 416 2004 1 ILRM 129 2003/32/7741 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Discovery Relevancy - Alleged misconduct of applicant ... before court within current proceedings - Whether court entitled to consider potential claim which could be put forward - Lynch v Attorney General [2003] 3 IR 416 applied - Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 (No 30), ss 2 and 3(3) - Application refused (2007/15 CAB - Feeney J - 20/4/2009) [2009] IEHC ......
-
Gibson v Ag
......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 ......