Minister for Justice and Equality v Liam Craig Porter
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Caroline Biggs |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IEHC 162 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2021 No. 260 EXT.] |
[2022] IEHC 162
[2021 No. 260 EXT.]
THE HIGH COURT
Trade and Co-Operation Agreement warrant – Surrender – Correspondence – Applicant seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland pursuant to a Trade and Co-Operation Agreement warrant – Whether surrender of the respondent in respect of the offences and each or other of them contained in the Trade and Co-Operation Agreement warrant was prohibited by s. 5 and/or s. 38 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003
Facts: The applicant, the Minister for Justice and Equality, applied to the High Court seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent, Mr Porter, to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland pursuant to a Trade and Co-Operation Agreement warrant dated the 27th of September 2021 (the TCA warrant). The TCA warrant was issued by District Judge Temperley, sitting at North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court, as the issuing judicial authority. The TCA warrant sought the surrender of the respondent in order to prosecute him in respect of an alleged offence of murder. The respondent objected to surrender and set out the points of objection in an amended notice filed on the 1st of February 2022. The respondent submitted that it is a mandatory requirement of s. 11 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, that there be unwavering clarity as to the number of offences for which the respondent is sought; in addition, there must be clarity as to the offence to which the Court will apply the law for correspondence. The respondent submitted that, contrary to this requirement: (a) Part e of the warrant states three offences; (b) under this heading it goes on to say “Murder...1 offence and thereafter manslaughter ... 1 offence, assisting offender ... 1 offence”; (c) the warrant states that it relates to in total three offences; (d) the description of the circumstances of the offence at Paragraph (e) state that there is both an assault and later, a fatal stabbing and the requested person is said to be present for both attacks; (e) Paragraph E.II states that manslaughter “is a direct alternative to the offence of murder which the jury might have to consider”; (f) Part E.II of the warrant states that the respondent left the scene with Mr Hull after the stabbing, in Mr Hull's vehicle, that his presence with Mr Hull in the immediate aftermath of the stabbing shows he was willing to support and assist Mr Hull and that Mr Hull was present when the vehicle was set on fire. The respondent submitted that surrender of the respondent in respect of the offences and each or other of them contained in the TCA warrant is prohibited by s. 5 and/or s. 38 of the 2003 Act as the offences and each or other of them do not correspond in their entirety or at all to an offence or offences under the laws of the state and/or the facts as disclosed in the warrant are insufficient to correspond to an offence or offences under the laws of the state. The respondent requested in that regard that the Court make enquiry as to correspondence in respect of the offences in the warrant.
Held by Biggs J that there was no ambiguity about any of the matters set out in the TCA warrant; the warrant itself and the additional information of the 11th of January 2022 showed in clear terms that the victim was subjected to an unlawful killing on the 18th of September 2021. Biggs J held that the UK authorities wished to prosecute the respondent for the offence of murder and for the alternative offences of manslaughter and of assisting an offender. Biggs J held that surrender was not prohibited by s. 11 of the 2003 Act. For the question of correspondence in a TCA warrant, Biggs J held that there was sufficient information before the Court to determine that correspondence could be established between the offences referred to in the TCA warrant and offences under the law of the State.
Biggs J held that the Court would make an order pursuant to s. 16 of the 2003 Act for the surrender of the respondent to the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Application granted.
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Caroline Biggs delivered on the 17th day of February, 2022
By this application, the applicant seeks an order for the surrender of the respondent to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland pursuant to a Trade and Co-Operation Agreement warrant dated the 27th of September 2021 (“the TCA warrant”). The TCA warrant was issued by District Judge John Temperley, sitting at North Cumbria Magistrates' Court, as the issuing judicial authority.
The TCA warrant seeks the surrender of the respondent in order to prosecute him in respect of an alleged offence of murder.
The TCA warrant was endorsed by the High Court on the 28th day of September 2021 and the respondent was arrested and brought before the High Court on the 29th of September 2021 on foot of same.
I am satisfied that the person before the Court, the respondent, is the person in respect of whom the TCA warrant was issued. No issue was raised in that regard.
I am satisfied that none of the matters referred to in ss. 21A, 22, 23 and 24 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, as amended (“the Act of 2003”), arise for consideration in this application and surrender of the respondent is not precluded for any of the reasons set forth in any of those sections.
The offence in respect of which surrender of the respondent is sought carries a maximum penalty in excess of twelve months' imprisonment.
As surrender is sought to prosecute the respondent, no issue arises under s. 45 of the Act of 2003.
The respondent objected to surrender and set out the points of objection in an amended notice filed on the 1st of February 2022 as follows:
-
— It is a mandatory requirement of Section 11 of the Act of 2003 that there be unwavering clarity as to the number of offences for which the respondent is sought. In addition, there must be clarity as to the offence to which the Court will apply the law for correspondence. Contrary to this requirement:
-
(a) Part e of the warrant states three offences.
-
(b) Under this heading it goes on to say Murder…1 offence and thereafter manslaughter … 1 offence, assisting offender … 1 offence.
-
(c) The warrant states that it relates to in total: three offences.
-
(d) The description of the circumstances of the offence at Paragraph (e) state that there is both an assault and later, a fatal stabbing and the requested person is said to be present for both attacks.
-
(e) Paragraph E.II states that manslaughter “is a direct alternative to the offence of murder which the jury might have to consider.”
-
(f) Part E.II of the warrant states that the respondent left the scene with Kane Hull after the stabbing, in Kane Hull's vehicle, that his presence with Kane Hull in the immediate aftermath of the stabbing shows he was willing to support and assist Kane Hull and that Kane Hull was present when the vehicle was set on fire.
-
-
— Surrender of the respondent in respect of the offences and each or other of them contained in the TCA warrant is prohibited by section 5 and/or section 38 of the Act of 2003 as the offences and each or other of them do not correspond in their entirety or at all to an offence or offences under the laws of the state and/or the facts as disclosed in the warrant are insufficient to correspond to an offence or offences under the laws of the state. The respondent requested in this regard that the Court make enquiry as to correspondence in respect of the offences in the warrant.
Section 11 of the Act of 2003 provides:
“11.—(1) A relevant arrest warrant shall, in so far as is practicable —(a) in the case of a European arrest warrant, be in the form set out in the Annex to the Framework Decision as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, (b) in the case of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement arrest warrant, be in the form set out in Annex Law-5 to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and (c) in the case of an arrest warrant within the meaning of the EU-Iceland Norway Agreement, be in the form set out in the Annex to the EU-Iceland Norway Agreement.
(1A) Subject to subsection (2A), a relevant arrest warrant shall specify
(a) the name and the nationality of the person in respect of whom it is issued,
(b) the name of the judicial authority that issued the relevant arrest warrant, and the address of its principal office,
(c) the telephone number, fax number and email address (if any) of that judicial authority,
(d) the offence to which the relevant arrest warrant relates, including the nature and classification under the law of the issuing state of the offence concerned,
(e) that a conviction, sentence or detention order is immediately enforceable against the person, or that a warrant for his or her arrest, or other order of a judicial authority in the issuing state having the same effect, has been issued in respect of one of the offences to which the relevant arrest warrant relates,
(f) the circumstances in which the offence was committed or is alleged to have been committed, including the time and place of its commission or alleged commission, and the degree of involvement or alleged degree of involvement of the person in the commission of the offence, and
(g)(i) the penalties to which that person would, if convicted of the offence specified in the relevant arrest warrant, be liable,
(ii) where that person has been convicted of the offence specified in the relevant arrest warrant but has not yet been sentenced, the penalties to which he or she is liable in respect of the offence, or
(iii) where that person has been convicted of the offence specified in the relevant arrest warrant and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial