Minister for Justice and Equality v Jason Patrick Buckley

 
FREE EXCERPT

[2014] IEHC 321

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 206 EXT./2013]
Min for Justice v Buckley
No Redaction Needed
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

JASON PATRICK BUCKLEY
RESPONDENT

2013/206EXT - Edwards - High - 28/5/2014 - 2014 34 9876 2014 IEHC 321

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883 S3(1)(A)

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

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

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 S3(1)

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

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

POLICE & CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 S74 (UK)

POLICE & CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 S75 (UK)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37(1)(A)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37(1)(B)

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6

CONSTITUTION ART 38.1

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6(3)(D)

BARBERA & ORS v SPAIN 1989 11 EHRR 360 1988 ECHR 25

PAPAGEORGIOU v GREECE UNREP ECHR 22.10.1997 1997 ECHR 86

ELLIS v O'DEA & DISTRICT JUSTICE SHIELDS 1989 IR 530

BORGES v FITNESS TO PRACTICE COMMITTEE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL & MEDICAL COUNCIL 2004 1 IR 103 2004 2 ILRM 81 2004/5/962 2004 IESC 9

MIN FOR JUSTICE v SHANNON UNREP EDWARDS 15.2.2012 2012/28/8071 2012 IEHC 91

POLICE & CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 S78 (UK)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S4A

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37

NEVIN & LAVELLE v NEVIN 2013 2 ILRM 427 2013/39/11442 2013 IEHC 80

AL-KHAWAJA & TAHERY v UNITED KINGDOM 2009 49 EHRR 1 26 BHRC 249 2009 CRIM LR 352 2009 AER (D) 132 (JAN) 2009 ECHR 110

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 (UK)

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6(1)

LUCA v ITALY 2003 36 EHRR 46

MIN FOR JUSTICE v NOLAN UNREP EDWARDS 24.5.2012 2012/27/7892 2012 IEHC 249

MIN FOR JUSTICE v T (JA) UNREP EDWARDS 9.5.2014 2014 IEHC 320

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (EVIDENCE) ACT 1924 S1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2010 S33

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

AG, PEOPLE v BOND 1966 IR 214

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE CO COUNCIL v B (K) & B (K) 2012 2 ILRM 170 2013/40/11598 2011 IESC 48

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1)

Criminal Law – Conspiracy to Cause Explosions - Practice and procedure – Admissibility of Evidence - s. 13, s. 16 and s. 37(1)(a) and (b) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003– s. 3(1)(a) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 – ss. 74 and 75 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention of Human Rights – Article 38.1 of the Constitution of Ireland

1

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Edwards delivered on the 28th day of May, 2014

Introduction
2

The respondent is the subject of a European arrest warrant dated 12 th August, 2013, issued by a competent judicial authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("the United Kingdom") which seeks the rendition of the respondent for the purpose of prosecuting him for the single offence of Conspiracy to Cause Explosions, as particularised in part (e) of the warrant. The warrant was endorsed for execution in this jurisdiction by the High Court on 15 th August, 2013. The respondent was arrested in execution of the warrant on 4 th September, 2013, by Sergeant Sean Fallon and was brought before the High Court on the same day pursuant to s.13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 ("the Act of 2003"). In the course of the s.13 hearing, a notional date was fixed for the purposes of s.16 of the Act of 2003 and the respondent was remanded on bail to the fixed date. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time, ultimately coming before the Court for the purposes of a surrender hearing.

3

The respondent does not consent to his surrender to the United Kingdom. Accordingly, this Court is now being asked by the applicant to make an order, pursuant to s.16 of the Act of 2003, directing that the respondent be surrendered to such person as is duly authorised by the issuing state to receive him. The Court must consider 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 dependent upon a judicial finding that they have been so satisfied.

Uncontroversial s.16 issues
4

The Court has received and scrutinised a true copy of the European arrest warrant in this case. Further, the Court has taken the opportunity to inspect the original European arrest warrant which is on the Court's file and which bears this Court's endorsement.

5

The Court has also received an affidavit of Sergeant Sean Fallon sworn on 21 st January, 2014, testifying as to his arrest of the respondent. He states at para. 3 of his affidavit that the man that he arrested acknowledged that he was Jason Buckley. Moreover, he acknowledged the other part (a) details when they were put to him.

6

In addition, counsel for the respondent has confirmed that no issue arises as to either the arrest or identity of the respondent.

7

I am satisfied following my consideration of these matters 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 in the correct form;

12

(e) The warrant purports to be a prosecution type warrant and the respondent is wanted in the United Kingdom for the purpose of being tried for the offence particularised in part (e) of the warrant;

13

(f) The nature and classification of the offence to which the warrant relates "Conspiracy to cause explosions, Contrary To Section 3(1)(a) Of the Explosive Substances Act 1883".

14

(g) The underlying domestic decision on which the warrant is based is a warrant of arrest at first instance, dated 12 th August, 2013, and issued at Birmingham Magistrates' Court for an offence of conspiracy to cause explosions.

15

(h) The issuing judicial authority has not invoked para. 2 of Article 2 of Council ramework Decision of 13 th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/J.H.A.), O.J. L190/1 of 18.7.2002 ("the Framework Decision") and, accordingly, the Court requires o be satisfied both with respect to correspondence and minimum gravity;

16

(i) The offence is adequately particularised within the warrant as follows:

"JASON BUCKLEY between the 20th day of June 2012 and the 18th day of August 2012 unlawfully and maliciously conspired together with Thomas James Leslie Snr, Jason Joseph William Taft, Thomas Richard Leslie Jnr, Kevin Proctor and Martin William Drewery and with others to cause by explosive devices explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland contrary to section 3(1) (a) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883."

17

The warrant also contains considerable further information within part (e), describing the circumstances in which the alleged offence is said to have occurred and reference will be made to this, where necessary, later in this judgment.

18

(j) Counsel for the applicant has invited the Court to find correspondence with the offence in Irish law of "Conspiracy to cause explosions, contrary to section 3(l)(a) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883". The same legislation applies here as applies in the United Kingdom. Counsel for respondent accepts that the legislation in both jurisdictions is identical and has confirmed that he is raising no issue as to correspondence in the double criminality sense of that expression. Having considered the facts set out in the warrant and the ingredients of the candidate corresponding offence, the Court is satisfied to find correspondence with the suggested s. 3(1)(a) offence.

19

(k) The minimum gravity threshold is that which now finds transposition into Irish domestic law within s. 38(l)(a)(i) of the Act of 2003, namely that a potential sentence of at least 12 months should be available to the court in the issuing state. As we are told in part (c) that the offence to which the warrant relates attracts a potential penalty of up to life imprisonment, the minimum gravity threshold is clearly met;

20

(l) There are no circumstances that would cause the Court to refuse to surrender the respondent under ss. 21 A, 22, 23 or 24 of the Act of 2003, as amended.

21

In addition, the Court is satisfied to note the existence of the European Arrest Warrant Act...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL