Minister for Justice and Equality v Downey

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Malley J.,Clarke C.J.
• Judgment Date: 09 October 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 215
• Docket Number: A:AP:IE:2019:000126
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 09 October 2019

[2019] IESCDET 215

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

O'Malley J.

Irvine J.

A:AP:IE:2019:000126

IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003

(AS AMENDED)

BETWEEN

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

APPLICANT

AND

JOHN ANTHONY DOWNEY

RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Respondent / Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court Of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 3rd July 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 3rd July 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 10th July 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 11th JULY 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

Introduction

1 The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal (see [2019] IECA 182) to uphold the decision of the High Court (Donnelly J. - see [2019] IEHC 119) ordering his surrender to Northern Ireland on foot of a European Arrest Warrant. The certified point of law dealt with by the Court of Appeal was whether such surrender would constitute an abuse of the process of the High Court in the circumstances described in the judgments.

General Considerations

2 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

3 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out...