Min for Justice v Voznuka

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr Justice Michael Peart
Judgment Date23 Apr 2009
Neutral Citation[2009] IEHC 195
Docket NumberRecord Number: No. 166 Ext./2008

[2009] IEHC 195

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: No. 166 Ext./2008
Min for Justice v Voznuka

Between:

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Applicant

And

Jelena Voznuka
Respondent

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S3

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S21A

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S22

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S23

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S24

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 PART III

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S5

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S11(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S13(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S12(1)

CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1991 S2(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S12(1)(A)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S12(1)(B)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT 1994 S11

WHELAN v MADIGAN 1978 ILRM 136

EXTRADITION

European arrest warrant

Correspondence - Whether correspondence evident from warrant - Whether correspondence established - Whether all ingredients for offence in Irish law established - Whether any correspondence with offence - Whelan v Madigan [1978] ILRM 136 applied - Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (No 50), s 12 (1) - Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 (No 2), ss 11(1) and 13(1) - European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 (No 45), ss 3 and 5- Order for surrender granted (2008/166Ext - Peart J - 23/4/2009) [2009] IEHC 195

Minister for Justice v Voznuka

Judgment of
Mr Justice Michael Peart
1

The surrender of the respondent is sought by a judicial authority in Latvia, a designated state for the purpose of s. 3 of the European Arrest warrant Act,2003 as amended ("the Act"), under a European arrest warrant which issued there on the 4th September, 2007. That warrant was endorsed for execution by the High Court on the 19th September, 2008, and the respondent was duly arrested on foot of same on the 24th November, 2008 and, as required by s. 13 of the Act, was brought before the High Court, from where she has been remanded from time to time on bail pending the hearing of this application for her surrender.

2

No issue is raised as to the respondent's identity and I am satisfied in any event from the affidavit filed herein by Sgt. James Kirwan, the arresting Garda officer, that the person who he arrested on that date is the person in respect of whom this warrant has been issued in Latvia.

3

Her surrender is sought so that she can be prosecuted for a single offence described as "an illegal entry into apartment against will of person living there". That Latvian offence satisfies the minimum gravity requirement under the Framework Decision since it attracts a maximum penalty of up to two years imprisonment, and in some circumstances up to four years, according to the information contained in the warrant. The only issue raised against surrender in this case is that of correspondence and I will come to that.

4

Otherwise, I am satisfied that the Court is not required to refuse to order surrender by any provision of ss 21A, 22, 23 or 24 of the Act, and that he surrender is not prohibited by any provision of Part III of the Act or the Framework Decision.

5

The warrant contains details of the acts of the respondent said to give rise to the offence. That information is added to by some additional information provided by letter from the Latvian Court to the Central authority here. The details in the warrant, as translated, appear as follows:

"[The respondent] committed an illegal entering into apartment against will of person living there.

Namely, on August 11, 2005 t 9.00-10.00 a.m. [the respondent] being aware that living premises at [address] are lawfully occupied by Ieva Viktorija Mizane and that she lives therein, [the respondent] deceived the employees of house management company SIA Jurmalas Namsaimnieks regarding necessity to unplug the gas supply in the mentioned living premises in absence of Ieva Viktorija Mizane while a possibility existed to get into touch with Ieva Viktorija Mizane, without permission of the latter and while there existed no circumstances when immediate getting into apartment would be lawfully based, through intermediation of employees of SIA Jurmalas Namsaimnieks who prized up the door locks of mentioned apartment, illegally and against to (sic) will of Ieva Viktorija Mizane, entered the living premises at [address]. Hence [respondent] with her illegal actions rudely violated the fundamental interests of Ieva Viktorija Mizane regarding inviolability of her residential premises which provides for that nobody has rights to enter a residential premises without lawful grounds and against will of person who lives in the concerned apartment, namely committed a criminal offence provided for by the 1st Part of 143rd Section of the Criminal Law."

6

The additional information provided by the issuing judicial authority states, inter alia, that on 4th August 2005 (i.e. some days prior to the date of this alleged offence) the landlord of the apartment had failed to obtain an eviction order against the tenant, and that on the 9th August 2005 (a couple of days prior to the date of this alleged offence) the respondent "as authorized representative" of the landlord had submitted an application to the local gas company to have the gas supply disconnected. It is stated also that in making that application the respondent deceived the gas company by stating that the tenant was "waiving" a gas supply service.

7

This information states additionally that"[the respondent] with intention illegally enter into the apartment of another against will of person living there with officials of the Municipal Police prized up the door of apartment and dismantled the gas meter specifying in the statement on dismantle or disconnecting of gas meter and gas equipment that reason of that doing is waiving of concerned subscriber from gas supply services. The lock was replaced as well." (my emphasis)

8

It also states that the respondent did not have the consent of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

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