Minister for Justice and Equality v J. A. T

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr Justice Edwards
Judgment Date09 May 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] IEHC 320

[2014] IEHC 320

THE HIGH COURT

Record No: No. 319 EXT/2011
Min for Justice v T (JA)
APPROVED
Redacted
Mr. Justice Edwards
JUDGMENT
IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003, AS AMENDED

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
Applicant
-and-
J. A. T.
Respondent

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977 S1(1) (UK)

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

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

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 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

MIN FOR JUSTICE v TIGHE UNREP SUPREME 21.12.2010 2010/34/8686 2010 IESC 61

AG v HILTON 2005 2 IR 374 2004/3/551 2004 IESC 51

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6

CONSTITUTION ART 38

CONSTITUTION ART 40

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 2

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 3

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 5

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8

CONSTITUTION ART 41

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S20(1)

MIN FOR JUSTICE v TOBIN (NO 2) 2012 4 IR 147 2012/28/8166 2012 IESC 37

HENDERSON v HENDERSON 1843 3 HARE 100 67 ER 313 1843-60 AER 378

A (A) v MEDICAL COUNCIL 2003 4 IR 302 2004 1 ILRM 372 2003/1/49

BOLGER v O'TOOLE & ORS UNREP SUPREME 2.12.2002 2002/4/725

VANTIVE HOLDINGS & ORS, IN RE 2010 2 IR 118 2009/57/14518 2009 IESC 69

AG v GIBSON (ORSE VALENTINE) UNREP SUPREME 10.6.2004 2004/3/528

MIN FOR JUSTICE v RODNOV UNREP SUPREME 1.6.2006 (EX TEMPORE)

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1978 PART V

JOHNSON v GORE WOOD & CO (A FIRM) (NO 1) 2002 2 AC 1 2001 2 WLR 72 2001 1 AER 481

GAIRY v AG OF GRENADA 2002 1 AC 167 2001 3 WLR 779 2001 UKPC 30

O'SULLIVAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE IRISH PRISON SERVICE & ORS 2010 4 IR 562 2011 1 ILRM 350 2010/42/10645 2010 IEHC 301

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) RECITAL 6

MIN FOR JUSTICE v HANISZEWSKI UNREP EDWARDS 24.1.2014 2014 IEHC 50

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) RECITAL 9

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 7

FARRELL & HANRAHAN THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT IN IRELAND 2011

RIMSA v GOVERNOR OF CLOVERHILL PRISON UNREP SUPREME 28.7.2010 2010/44/11176 2010 IESC 47

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 23(3)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2009 S20(B)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S45C

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT (APPLICATION TO THIRD COUNTRIES & AMDT) & EXTRADITION (AMDT) ACT 2012 S24

MIN FOR JUSTICE v SURMA UNREP EDWARDS 3.12.2013 2013/35/10321 2013 IEHC 618

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S10

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) RECITAL 1

R v REGAN 2002 1 SCR 297 2002 SCC 12

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

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

MIN FOR JUSTICE v CAHILL UNREP EDWARDS 19.7.2012 2012/26/7530 2012 IEHC 315

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

KING v AG & DPP 1981 IR 233

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

STEEL & ORS v UNITED KINGDOM 1999 28 EHRR 603 5 BHRC 339 1998 CRIM LR 893 1998 ECHR 95

HASHMAN & HARRUP v UNITED KINGDOM 2000 30 EHRR 241 8 BHRC 104 2000 CRIM LR 185 1999 ECHR 133

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 PART III

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

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

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37(1)

MIN FOR JUSTICE v E (T) UNREP EDWARDS 19.6.2013 2013/32/9460 2013 IEHC 323

MIN FOR JUSTICE v G (RP) UNREP EDWARDS 18.7.2013 2013/32/9609 2013 IEHC 54

MIN FOR JUSTICE v GORMAN 2010 3 IR 583 2010/34/8621 2010 IEHC 210

MIN FOR JUSTICE v GHEORGHE UNREP SUPREME 18.11.2009 2009/39/9656 2009 IESC 76

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BEDNARCZYK UNREP EDWARDS 5.4.2011 2011/36/9982 2011 IEHC 136

LAUNDER v UNITED KINGDOM 1998 25 EHRR CD67

KING v UNITED KINGDOM UNREP ECHR 26.1.2010 2010 ECHR 164 (APPLICATION NO 9742/07)

AHMAD v UNITED KINGDOM 2013 56 EHRR 1 2012 AER (D) 148 (APR)

HUANG & KASHMIRI v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT 2007 2 AC 167 2007 2 WLR 581 2007 4 AER 15 2007 UKHL 11

RUIZ JASO & ORS v CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT NO 2 MADRID 2008 1 WLR 2798 2007 AER (D) 211 (DEC) 2007 EWHC 2983 (ADMIN)

NORRIS v GOVT OF THE UNITED STATES (NO 2) 2010 2 AC 487 2010 2 WLR 572 2010 2 AER 267 2010 HRLR 20 2010 UKSC 9

H (Z) [TANZANIA] v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT 2011 2 AC 166 2011 2 WLR 148 2011 2 AER 783 2011 1 FCR 221 2011 HRLR 15 2011 UKSC 4

H (H) v DEPUTY PROSECUTOR OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC GENOA 2013 1 AC 338 2012 3 WLR 90 2012 4 AER 539 2012 HRLR 25 2012 UKSC 25

MIN FOR JUSTICE v OSTROWSKI UNREP SUPREME 15.5.2013 2013 IESC 24

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8(2)

European Arrest Warrant – Conspiracy to cheat the public revenue – Human Rights – Process – Procedural Fairness – Particularization of offences – Fair Trial – Surrender order – Public Interest Concerns

The respondent in these proceedings was subject to a European Arrest warrant, for offences involving conspiracy to cheat the public revenue and other fraudulent activities. The applicant (Minister for Justice and Equality) sought to make an order pursuant to s.16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act of 2003 maintaining that the respondent be surrendered to such person as is duly authorized by the issuing state to receive him. The application for a surrender order was heard before Justice Edwards J. in the High Court. The respondent objected to the application on the grounds of an alleged abuse of this Court”s process, alleged insufficient particularization of the offences and multiple objections upon alleged breaches/apprehended breaches of various rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights.

Edwards considered carefully the submissions from the parties in order to decide whether it would be justified to issue the order of surrender upon the respondent. Firstly, the respondent”s main objection was that there was an alleged breach of court process due to the first set of proceedings failing as a result of want of care by the issuing judicial authority and an absence of an explanation as to the extraordinary course of the earlier proceedings. Edwards however reached a different conclusion to the abuse of process claim. Edwards stated that although the absence of explanation and other procedural anomalies must be taken in to account there was no evidence of any deliberate misuse by the applicant in order to secure an unfair advantage or an unlawful result. In regards to the respondents objection based on insufficient particularization of alleged offences Edwards concluded that it is ultimately a matter of judgment as to whether such particulars as have been furnished are sufficient and decided that in this case the offences had been sufficiently particularized with respect to place. The final point analyzed by Edwards was that of an alleged procedural unfairness and infraction of Human Rights by way of the proceedings being prejudicial to the health and wellbeing of the respondent and his family caused by delay and what would potentially be caused by the surrender order. While reviewing affidavits of medical reports and other relevant evidence Edwards J considered in great detail the personal circumstances of the respondent and his family on account of their medical and mental health difficulties. Although accepting that it will be distressing and difficult for the whole family Edwards Concluded that the proposed surrender would not be so profound or extraordinary as to outweigh the substantial public interest that exists in the respondent”s rendition. Edwards Held that in all the circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to make an order for the respondent”s surrender to the issuing state.

1

Judgment of Mr Justice Edwards delivered on the 9th day of May 2014

Introduction:
2

For future citation purposes this case may be referred to as "T. (No 2.)" to differentiate it from the earlier case of the same name (described later in this judgment) which may be referred to as "T. (No 1.)".

3

The respondent is the subject of a European arrest warrant dated the 13 th June, 2011, on foot of which the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter "the United Kingdom") seeks his surrender for the purpose of prosecuting him in respect of four offences particularised in Part (e) of the warrant. The warrant was endorsed for execution in this jurisdiction on the 16 th September, 2011, and it was duly executed on the 24 th July, 2012. The respondent was arrested by Sergeant J. K. on that date, and he 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"). 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 date fixed. Thereafter the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • The Minister for Justice & Equality v Downey
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal
    • 3 July 2019
    ...warrant again seeking the respondent's surrender in respect of the same offences, but for reasons given by Edwards J. in his judgment ( [2014] IEHC 320) he was satisfied that there was a de facto abuse of process in seeking surrender on foot of the second warrant largely on the basis that ......
  • Muintir Skibereen Credit Union Ltd v Cornelius Crowley and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 23 January 2015
    ...Minister for Justice and Equality -v- Anthony Craig [2014] IEHC 460 (Edwards J.).and The Minister for Justice and Equality -v- J.A.T. [2014] IEHC 320 (Edwards J.). 43 The matter was listed again on 18 December 2014, when the probation history outlined on the previous hearing was confirmed a......
  • Minister for Justice and Equality v Dariusz Stalkowski and Another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 November 2014
    ...2003 PART 1 (UK) MIN FOR JUSTICE v TOBIN (NO 2) 2012 4 IR 147 2012/28/8166 2012 IESC 37 MIN FOR JUSTICE v T (JA) UNREP EDWARDS 9.5.2014 2014 IEHC 320 EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT 2003 S4(A) MIN FOR JUSTICE v ALTARAVICIUS 2006 3 IR 148 2006/39/8296 2006 IESC 23 MIN FOR JUSTICE v SHANNON UNREP ED......
  • Minister for Justice and Equality v Downey
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 March 2019
    ...process, both parties relied upon the case of J.A.T. (No. 2). In that case, the High Court ( Minister for Justice and Equality v J.A.T. [2014] IEHC 320) found that there was a de facto abuse of process as the requested person had suffered unjust harassment in the manner in which the reques......
  • 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