Min for Justice v Shannon

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr. Justice Edwards
Judgment Date15 Feb 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] IEHC 91

[2012] IEHC 91

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 78 EXT./2011
Min for Justice v Shannon
APPROVED
Mr. Justice Edwards
JUDGMENT
IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT, 2003 AS AMENDED

BETWEEN:

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
APPLICANT

AND

GERARD SHANNON
RESPONDENT

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S45

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S21A

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S22

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S23

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S24

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S79

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S80

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S81

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S82

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S3(1)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 (DESIGNATED MEMBER STATES) ORDER 2004 SI 4/2004 ART 2

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 2(2)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S12

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S38(1)(A)(i)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)(F)

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 8(1)(E)

MIN FOR JUSTICE v DESJATNIKOVS 2009 1 IR 618 2008/40/8711 2008 IESC 53

MIN FOR JUSTICE v STAFFORD UNREP SUPREME 17.12.2009 2009/39/9807 2009 IESC 83

MIN FOR JUSTICE v HAMILTON 2008 1 IR 60 2005/39/8045 2005 IEHC 292

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11

CONSTITUTION ART 38

DPP v K (B) 2000 2 IR 199 2000/7/2696

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (EVIDENCE) ACT 1924

DPP v FERRIS 2008 1 IR 1 2002/9/2061

DPP v MCGRAIL 1990 2 IR 38 3 FREWEN 214 1990/2/475

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BRENNAN 2007 IR 3 732 2007/40/8282 2007 IESC 21

MIN FOR JUSTICE v STAPLETON 2008 1 IR 669 2008 1 ILRM 267 2007/41/8499 2007 IESC 30

MIN FOR JUSTICE v ADAMS UNREP EDWARDS 3.10.2011 2011 IEHC 366

MIN FOR JUSTICE v GARDENER UNREP SUPREME 30.7.2007 2007/40/8339 2007 IESC 40

MIN FOR JUSTICE v R (SM) 2008 2 IR 242 2007/41/8454 2007 IESC 54

MIN FOR JUSTICE v HALL UNREP SUPREME 7.5.2009 2009/39/9728 2009 IESC 40

MIN FOR JUSTICE v ADAM (NO 1) UNREP EDWARDS 3.3.2011 2011 IEHC 68

LARKIN v O'DEA 1995 2 IR 485

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S4

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1984 S10

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 PART III

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 (UK)

DPP v CAMPBELL & ORS UNREP CCA 7.2.1983 1983/1/201

CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) ACT 1976

CRIMINAL LAW (JURISDICTION) BILL 1975, IN RE 1977 IR 129

CLARKE v MCMAHON & GOVERNOR OF PORTLAOISE PRISON 1990 1 IR 228 1990 ILRM 648

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37(1)

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE CO COUNCIL v B UNREP SUPREME 15.12.2011 2011 IESC 48

EXTRADITION LAW

European arrest warrant

Surrender - Offence of burglary - Specificity - Whether warrant specified degree of involvement of respondent - Whether sufficient detail - Whether warrant deficient - Whether nature of respondent's involvement or participation clear from warrant - Right to fair trial - Previous conviction - Whether contrary to respondent's right to fair trial that law of England and Wales would allow respondent's previous conviction to be put into evidence - Whether real risk that respondent's previous conviction would be put into evidence - Whether disparity of procedures - Whether fundamental differences of law concerning admissibility of evidence - Whether court had jurisdiction to subject laws of another jurisdiction to constitutional scrutiny - Whether respondent demonstrated he would be subjected to an egregious breach of his rights amounting to a fundamental defect in the system of justice of the issuing state - Minister for Justice v Desjatnikovs [2008] IESC 53, [2009] 1 R 618, Minister for Justice v Stafford [2009] IESC 83, Minister for Justice v Hamilton [2005] IEHC 292, [2008] 1 IR 60, and Minister for Justice v Kaprowicz [2010] IEHC 207 (Unrep, Peart J, 13/5/2010) considered - Minister for Justice v Brennan [2007] IESC 21, [2007] 3 IR 732, Minister for Justice v Stapleton [2007] IESC 30, [2008] 1 IR 669, Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48 (Unrep, SC, 15/12/2011) and Clarke v McMahon [1990] 1 IR 228 applied - Minister for Justice v Adams [2011] IEHC 366 (Unrep, Edwards J, 3/10/2011) followed - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), ss 11, 16, 37, & 38 - Surrender ordered (2011/78EXT - Edwards J - 15/2/2012) [2012] IEHC 91

Minister for Justice and Equality v Shannon

Surrender - Burglary - Specificity - Whether warrant deficient - Whether warrant specified degree of involvement -Whether nature of respondent's involvement clear from warrant - Right to fair trial - Previous conviction - Whether breach of respondent's right to fair trial that law of England and Wales permitted respondent's previous conviction to be put into evidence - Whether fundamental differences of law concerning admissibility of evidence - Whether court could subject laws of another jurisdiction to constitutional scrutiny - Whether respondent would be subjected to an egregious breach of rights amounting to a fundamental defect in system of justice of issuing state - Minister for Justice v Desjatnikovs [2008] IESC 53, [2009] 1 IR 618; Minister for Justice v Stafford [2009] IESC 83, (Unrep, SC, 17/12/2009) Minister for Justice v Hamilton [2005] IEHC 292, [2008] 1 IR 60, and Minister for Justice v Kaprowicz [2010] IEHC 207, (Unrep, Peart J, 13/5/2010) considered - Minister for Justice v Brennan [2007] IESC 21, [2007] 3 IR 732; Minister for Justice v Stapleton [2007] IESC 30, [2008] 1 IR 669; Nottinghamshire County Council v B [2011] IESC 48, (Unrep, SC, 15/12/2011) and Clarke v McMahon [1990] 1 IR 228 applied - Minister for Justice v Adams [2011] IEHC 366, (Unrep, Edwards J, 3/10/2011) followed - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), ss 11, 16, 37, & 38 - Surrender ordered (2011/78EXT - Edwards J - 15/2/2012) [2012] IEHC 91

Minister for Justice and Equality v Shannon

1

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Edwards delivered the 15th day of February, 2012.

1. Introduction:
2

The respondent is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority from within the England and Wales jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter the U.K.) on the 2nd of February, 2011. The warrant was endorsed for execution by the High Court in this jurisdiction on the 23rd of February, 2011. The respondent was arrested at 54 Marguerite Road, Dublin 9 on the 24th of March, 2011 by Sgt. Sean Fallon and was brought before the High Court on the same day pursuant to s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 (hereinafter the Act of 2003).

3

The respondent does not consent to his surrender to the U.K. Accordingly, this Court is now being asked by the applicant to make an Order pursuant to s. 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 as amended (hereinafter the Act of 2003) directing that the respondent be surrendered to such person as is duly authorised by the issuing state to receive him. In the circumstances the Court must enquire whether it is appropriate to do so having regard to the terms of s. 16 of the Act of 2003.

4

The respondent, as is his entitlement, does not concede that any of the requirements of s. 16 aforesaid are satisfied. Accordingly, as no admissions have been made, the Court is put on inquiry as to whether the requirements of s. 16 of the Act of 2003, both controversial and uncontroversial, have been satisfied and this Court's jurisdiction to make an order directing that the respondent be surrendered is dependant upon a judicial finding that they have been so satisfied. In addition the Court is required to consider in the particular circumstances of this case certain specific objections to the respondent's surrender which are pleaded in detail in the Points of Objection that have been fried, and which are helpfully summarised in counsel's written submissions as follows:

5

(a) that the European arrest warrant does not have the required degree of specificity required in relation to the offences alleged to have been committed by the respondent, and;

6

(b) that the surrender of the applicant will be in breach of his constitutional and convention rights, in particular his right to a fair trial and therefore his surrender is prohibited by s. 37 of the Act of 2003.

2. Uncontroversial Section 16 Issues
7

The Court has received an affidavit of Sgt. Sean Fallon sworn on the 18th of May, 2011 and has also received and scrutinised a copy of the European arrest warrant in this case. Moreover the Court has also inspected the original European arrest warrant which is on the Court's file and which bears this Court's endorsement. The Court is satisfied following its consideration of this evidence and documentation that:

8

(a) the European arrest warrant was endorsed for execution in this State in accordance with s. 13 of the Act of 2003;

9

(b) the warrant was duly executed;

10

(c) the person who has been brought before the Court is the person in respect of whom the European arrest warrant was issued;

11

(d) the warrant is a prosecution type warrant and the respondent is wanted in the U.K. to serve outstanding sentences in respect of six offences particularised in Part E of the warrant;

12

(e) no question arises of the respondent having been tried in absentia (as the case is a prosecution case), and accordingly it is not a case in which the court would require an undertaking under s. 45 of the Act of 2003;

13

(f) the High Court is not required, under ss. 21A, 22, 23, or 24 (inserted by ss. 79, 80, 81 and 82 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005), to refuse to surrender the respondent under the Act of 2003.

14

Subject to dealing with the specific objection raised in relation to an alleged lack of specificity,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • The Attorney General v Marques
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 12 December 2016
    ...the EAW Act 2003.’ 61 In his judgment, Fennelly J. referred to the judgment of Edwards J. in Minister for Justice and Equality v. Shannon [2012] IEHC 91 where he rejected a contention that due to the fact that the prosecution would be entitled to introduce evidence of the respondent's previ......
  • Allied Irish Banks Plc v Pierce
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 21 May 2015
    ...for jury trial or for the existence of an exclusionary rule. 33 The decision of Edwards J. inMinister for Justice and Equality v. Shannon [2012] IEHC 91 provides a good example of this approach. In that case the respondent maintained that his surrender to the United Kingdom would violate s.......
  • Minister for Justice and Equality v Anthony Craig
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 July 2014
    ...CO COUNCIL v B (K) & B (K) 2012 2 ILRM 170 2013/40/11598 2011 IESC 48 MIN FOR JUSTICE v SHANNON UNREP EDWARDS 15.2.2012 2012/28/8071 2012 IEHC 91 MIN FOR JUSTICE v BRENNAN 2007 3 IR 732 2007/40/8282 2007 IESC 21 MIN FOR JUSTICE v STAPLETON 2008 1 IR 669 2008 1 ILRM 267 2007/41/8499 2007......
  • Balmer v Minister for Justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 12 May 2016
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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