Min for Justice v Stafford

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham J.
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] IESC 83
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 17 December 2009

Min for Justice v Stafford

[2009] IESC 83

Between/

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant/Respondent

and

Martin Stafford

Respondent/Appellant

[2009] IESC 83

Denham J.

Hardiman J.

Finnegan J.

[Record No: 2006/399]

THE SUPREME COURT

EXTRADITION

European arrest warrant

Surrender for prosecution - Points of objection - Whether heading in warrant defective - Whether warrant invalid - Whether insufficient evidence to show alleged offences arise - Whether insufficient evidence linking respondent with alleged offences -Kidnapping - Murder - Rape - Framework decision - Whether omission of words in heading flaw going to validity of warrant - Sufficiency of facts stated in warrant - Whether facts alleged on warrant showed link with respondent - Whether accusation of crime based on circumstantial evidence possible basis for warrant - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), ss 11 and 16 - Surrender ordered (399/2006 - SC - 17/12/2009) [2009] IESC 83

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stafford

Facts Article 8 of the Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant provides, inter alia, that it shall contain "a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person". The High Court directed the surrender of the respondent to the United Kingdom on foot of a European arrest warrant. The respondent appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds, inter alia, that the heading in the European arrest warrant was defective and that, as a consequence, the warrant was invalid; that there was insufficient evidence on the warrants to show that the alleged offences arose and; that there was insufficient evidence linking the respondent to the alleged offences.

Held by the Supreme Court (Denham J., Hardiman and Finnegan JJ. concurring) in dismissing the appeal that the fact that the heading in the warrant did not contain the words "degree of participation or involvement" was not a flaw which went to the validity of the warrant so as to nullify it.

That the facts on the warrant were sufficient to describe the circumstances in which alleged offences were committed so as to comply with the provisions of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

That there was no significance in the use of the different words "participation" or "involvement" in the Framework Decision and the Act of 2003 respectively as they both had the same meaning. It was not necessary to show a strong or prima facie case on the warrant as the issue of guilt or innocence was for the jury in the requesting state and it was not for the requested state to consider the strength of the prosecution case against the respondent.

Reporter: P.C.

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1)

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

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S72

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 ANNEX

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S20(1)

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(2A)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2009 PART II

EXTRADITION ACT 1965

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

1 Judgment delivered the 17th day of December, 2009 by Denham J.

2 Judgment delivered by Denham J. (nem diss)

3 1. This is an appeal by Martin Stafford, the respondent/appellant, referred to in this judgment as "the appellant", from the order of the High Court (Peart J.) made on the 14 ^th day of February, 2006, pursuant to s.16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended, referred to in this judgment as "the Act of 2003", directing his surrender to such person as is duly authorised by the United Kingdom, on foot of a European arrest warrant.

4 2. The appellant has raised essentially three issues. First, that a heading in the European arrest warrant is defective and that as a consequence, or in conjunction with other matters, the warrant is invalid. Secondly, there is insufficient evidence on the warrants to show that the alleged offences arise. Thirdly, there is insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the allege offences. I shall consider each of these issues in this judgment.

The High Court

5 3. The learned trial judge, having referred to details set out in the warrant relating to charges of kidnapping, false imprisonment, murder, rape, unlawful wounding and sexual touching held:-

"I am of the view that the submission made by Mr O'Higgins fails to take adequate account of the principle of mutual recognition referred to in the Framework Decision. What is required to be included in paragraph (e) of the warrant, according to the specimen form of warrant annexed to the Framework Decision is a description of the circumstances in which the offences were committed, and this description should include details such as time, place and degree of participation by the requested person. The requesting judicial authority has stated in the warrant that the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to charge the respondent and to try him for these offences. The principle of mutual recognition must be interpreted in a way which precludes this Court, except in the most obvious and glaring inadequacy and failure to make any link between the person named in the warrant and the alleged offence, from seeking to go behind the description contained in paragraph (e) and in so doing questioning the bona fides of the warrant signed as it is by the issuing judge.

…

The requirement that the warrant contains a description of the degree of the respondent's involvement in the offences means just that - a description thereof. There is no requirement that a particular level of involvement be described in the sense of having to pass a certain threshold of involvement so as to show anything like a prima facie case. That would be to require a strength of argument demonstration. In my view the principle of mutual co-operation is consistent with the requesting authority being expected to show a degree of participation or involvement by the respondent in the offences set forth in the warrant. Beyond that it is a matter for the requesting authority, who in this case has stated that it has been decided to charge and try the respondent with the charges, to prove its case at trial beyond a reasonable doubt so as to dislodge the presumption of innocence which he presently enjoys as of right. To go further in my view and expect that the requesting authority should at this stage be required to set forth all of its proposed evidence in more detail is not something required by either the letter or the spirit of the Framework Decision.

The detail contained in the narrative to the effect that the respondent has been identified as being the driver in the missing person's car on the morning of the 5 ^th December 2004, combined with the fact that the semen which has a DNA match to the DNA of the respondent, as well as finding blood in the car, and the alleged conversation with Ms. Mohan on the way to Dublin is more than enough by way of degree of involvement in the alleged offences numbered 2 to 6 in the warrant in order to satisfy the requirement contained in the form of warrant provided for in the Framework Decision."

6 The learned High Court judge concluded by directing the surrender of the appellant.

Notice of Appeal

7 4. By Notice of Appeal the appellant has appealed to this Court. The essence of the appeal is the issue as to whether the warrant contains information which is required by the Act of 2003.

8 5. The grounds of appeal relevant to the issue are as follows:-

9 a "(a). The learned Judge, erred in fact and in law in:

10 (i) Failing to find that the facts set out in the warrant did not disclose the commission of the offences charged, or any of them.

11 (ii) That a finding that the offences numbered 2 to 6 in the warrant had been committed by someone was a pre-requisite to a finding that the detail contained in the warrant was sufficient to specify the degree of involvement or alleged degree of involvement of the Appellant in the commission of the offences.

12 (b) The learned Judge erred in his interpretation of section 11(1A)(f) of the European Arrest Warrant Act as amended by section 72 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005.

13 (c) The learned Judge erred in finding that the European Arrest Warrant was in the form required by section 11(1A)(f) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003as amended by section72 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 and in particular erred in finding that there was sufficient detail contained in the warrant to show the time, place and degree of participation/involvement alleged.

14 (d) Further or in the alternative the learned Judge erred in finding that the European Arrest Warrant was in the form required by the Annex to the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003(at page 88 of Act).

15 (e) The learned Judge erred in law in finding that the warrant transmitted to this State by the U.K. authority must be looked at in the context of the Preamble of the Framework decision.

16 (f) The learned Judge erred in law in finding that the submissions by Counsel for the Appellant failed to take account of the principle of mutual recognition referred to in the Framework Decision.

17 (g) The learned Judge erred in law in finding that the principle of mutual recognition must be interpreted in a way which precludes the Court (except in circumstances of the most glaring inadequacy and failure to make any link between the person named in the...