Minister for Justice and Equality v Doyle (No 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 26 October 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 451
• Court: High Court
• Date: 26 October 2012

[2012] IEHC 451

THE HIGH COURT

Record No: [No. 252 EXT/2011]

Min for Justice v Doyle

APPROVED

Mr. Justice Edwards

JUDGMENT

IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003, AS AMENDE

BETWEEN

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

APPLICANT

- AND -

YVONNE DOYLE

RESPONDENT

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

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

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

IDENTITY CARDS ACT 2006 S25(1) (UK)

THEFT ACT 1978 S1(1) (UK)

THEFT ACT 1968 S15A (UK)

THEFT ACT 1968 S15 (UK)

FRAUD ACT 2006 S1 (UK)

FRAUD ACT 2006 S2 (UK)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S38(1)(B)

MIN FOR JUSTICE v FERENCA 2008 4 IR 480 2009 1 ILRM 291 2008/40/8765 2008 IESC 52

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

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S29(2)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S24

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S30

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 PART IV

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 PART V

CONCISE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 10ED 2002

MAGUIRE v DPP 2004 3 IR 241 2005 1 ILRM 53 2004/29/6791 2004 IESC 53

BAIL ACT 1997 S2

BAIL ACT 1997 S3

BENNION STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: A CODE 4ED 2002 260

WILSON v SHEEHAN 1979 IR 423 1979/8/1416

S (EM) v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2004 1 IR 536 2005 1 ILRM 73 2004/45/10292 2004 IESC 36

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5

HANAFIN v MIN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT & ORS 1996 2 IR 321

O'H v O'H 1990 2 IR 558 1991 ILRM 108 1990/8/2131

ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY v REVENUE CMRS 2000 1 IR 270 1999/22/7236

POWYS v POWYS 1971 P 340 1971 3 WLR 154 1971 3 AER 116

ALLEN v EMMERSON & ORS 1944 KB 362 1944 1 AER 344

ANDERSON v ANDERSON 1895 1 QB 749

MCGRATH v MCDERMOTT (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) 1988 IR 258

O'CONNELL v AN TARD CHLARAITHEOIR 1997 1 IR 377 1998/28/11190

BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRL) ACT 1880 S38

M v D 1998 3 IR 175 1998/24/9319

PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 1996 S9

MCK (FJ) v D (GW) 2004 2 IR 470 2004 2 ILRM 419 2004/35/8106 2004 IESC 31

INSPECTOR OF TAXES v ARIDA LTD 1992 2 IR 155 1992 ITR 289 1992/7/2165

RSC O.58 r1

MIN FOR LANDS & FISHERIES, STATE v JUDGE SEALY 1939 IR 21

CORK CO COUNCIL v WHILLOCK & JUDGE MURPHY 1993 1 IR 231 1992/10/3239

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)

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

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BARON UNREP EDWARDS 4.5.2012 2012 IEHC 180

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S20(1)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S45C

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1)

Criminal law - European arrest warrant - Surrender - Objection - Documents - Correspondence -Insubstantial errors - Date discrepancies - European arrest warrant Act 2003, as amended

Facts: The respondent was the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the UK and the UK sought his rendition for the purposes of a criminal prosecution into the offences the subject of the warrant, including offences of possessing false identity documents and dishonesty of obtaining services by deception. The respondent did not consent to her surrender. Six points of objection were lodged asserting correspondence issues, including that the she was being put on proof (objections no. 1, 2 and 6), that the offence of "cheating the revenue" was not an offence under Irish law, nor was possessing false identity documents (objections no. 3, 4 and 5). Date discrepancies in the warrant were also alleged. The Court considered also whether a driving licence was included within the meaning of the term "document".

Held by Edwards J. that the charges were correct and there was nothing in the first point relating to offences 1 and 2 respectively. There were two false UK licences and the Court had been assisted by additional information obtained. The description of the circumstances should have referred to "two driving licences". To the extent that the original warrant was inaccurate and contained the discrepancy in question the Court would have been prepared to regard it as the omission of a non-substantial detail or a technical failure to comply with the Act which the Court could overlook, pursuant to s. 45C of the Act of 2003, in circumstances where no injustice arose as a result. It was not necessary to have recourse to the section here. Any date discrepancies could be overlooked as non-substantial.

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Edwards delivered on the 26th day of October, 2012

Introduction

2 The respondent is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter "the U.K.") on the 27th June, 2011. The warrant was endorsed for execution in this jurisdiction by the High Court (Peart J.) on the 15th July, 2011. The respondent was arrested on the 8 ^th January, 2012, and brought before the High Court in accordance with s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2003") when a date was fixed for the purposes of s.16 of the Act of 2003. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time, mostly upon the application of the respondent, until it came on for a surrender hearing spread across various dates in July 2012.

3 The U.K. seeks the rendition of the respondent for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution in respect of the eighteen offences the subject matter of the warrant. The underlying domestic warrant is a warrant of arrest dated the 28 January, 2011 issued at Milton Keynes Magistrates Court for failing to answer bail in respect of those eighteen offences, which consist of:

4 · five offences of possessing false identity documents with intent

5 · five offences of dishonesty of obtaining services by deception

6 · one offence of fraud by false representation

7 · one offence of obtaining and money transfer by deception

8 · six offences of cheating the revenue

9 The respondent does not consent to her 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 Act of 2003 directing that the respondent be surrendered to such person as is duly authorised by the issuing state to receive her.

10 The Court must consider whether the requirements of s. 16 of the Act of 2003, both controversial and uncontroversial, have been satisfied. Before considering the specific objections raised by the respondent, it is appropriate to identify those matters that are uncontroversial.

Uncontroversial s. 16 issues

11 The Court has received an affidavit of Garda Gary Gordon sworn on the 20th March, 2012 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. In addition, counsel for the respondent has confirmed that no issue arises as to identity. The Court is satisfied following its consideration of these matters that:

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

13 (b) the warrant was duly executed;

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

15 (d) the warrant is in the correct form;

16 (e) no issue arises as to trial in absentia as it is not a conviction type warrant, and no undertaking can therefore be required under s. 45 of the Act of 2003;

17 (f) the High Court is not required, under s. 21 A, s.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.

18 In addition, the Court is satisfied to note the existence of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (Designated Member States) Order 2004, S.I. 4/2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2004 Designation Order"), and duly notes that by a combination of s. 3(1) of the 2003 Act, and article 2 of, and the schedule to, the 2004 Designation Order, the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is designated for the purposes of the Act of 2003 as being a state that has under its national law given effect to the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, O.J. L190/1 18.7.2002 (hereinafter "the Framework Decision").

The Points of Objection

19 Points of Objection were filed by or on behalf of the respondent on the 20 ^th June, 2012. The document contained six points. Of these three of them (no.s 1, 2 and 6, respectively) could be characterised as general non-specific objections variously asserting that the applicant was being put on proof; that the warrant was bad on its face (without specifying precisely in what manner); and reserving the respondent's right to rely on "such further points of objection as may be permitted by this Honourable Court". The other three (no.s 3, 4 & 5, respectively) were substantive and were the grounds in fact relied upon at the hearing (at the outset at least). These were...