Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Patrick Mcginley
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Noonan |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 627 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 20 October 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 627
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Extradition – European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 – Principle of mutual recognition – Validity of arrest warrant
Facts: The applicant sought an order for the surrender of the respondent to the authorities in Northern Ireland pursuant to the issuance of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) alleging that the respondent in collusion with other two males had committed the offence of hijacking the vehicle of a taxi driver and assaulted him.
Mr. Justice Noonan granted an order for the surrender of the respondent to the relevant authorities. The Court held that there was nothing inappropriate in the EAW and it was properly executed and it was in conformity with the provisions of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The Court in consonance of the dicta of Peart J. in Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v. Stafford [2009] IESC 83 held that Court should see whether the acts alleged on the warrant showed a link with the requested person and it was not necessary to show a prima facie case and the issue of guilt or innocence was for the jury to determine.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered the 20th day of October, 2015.
1. This is an application brought pursuant to the provisions of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (as amended) ("the Act") for the surrender of the respondent to the authorities in Northern Ireland. The European Arrest Warrant ("EAW") was issued by Belfast Magistrates Court on the 9 th December, 2014 and was endorsed for execution by the High Court on the 13 th January, 2015. The respondent was arrested on foot of this warrant on the 10 th February, 2015 at the Criminal Courts of Justice, Dublin 7.
2. The four offences, which are the subject matter of the warrant, are alleged to have been committed on the 15 th November, 2011. The respondent was charged with these offences before Belfast Magistrates Court on the 16 th November, 2011, and was admitted to bail on the 18 th November, 2011. It is alleged that he absconded while on bail giving rise to the delay in bringing this application.
3. No issue has been raised as to the identity of the respondent and I am satisfied from the evidence of Sergeant Sean Fallon and Detective Garda Fiona McGuire that s. 16(1)(a) has been complied with and that the respondent is the person in respect of whom the EAW was issued.
4. With regard to s. 16(1)(b), I have examined the original warrant and I am satisfied that it has been endorsed in accordance with s. 13 of the Act for execution. Again, this is not in issue. The EAW states that the surrender of the respondent is requested for the purpose of prosecution and accordingly s. 45 does not apply, thus satisfying the requirements of s. 16(1)(c). With regard to s. 16(1)(d), the sections referred to therein do not apply and therefore the court is not required to refuse surrender on this ground.
5. The EAW gives particulars of the four offences which can be described in concise form as:
a) Hijacking a vehicle;
b) Causing criminal damage to that vehicle;
c) Common assault;
d) Causing criminal damage to a police vehicle.
Each offence carries a maximum sentence in excess of twelve months imprisonment, and accordingly satisfies the minimum gravity requirements contained in section 38(1)(a)(i).
6. Section (e) of the EAW provides a description of the circumstances in which the offences were committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offences by the respondent. A detailed narrative of those circumstances appears in section (e). In summary, it is alleged that in the early hours of the morning of the 15 th November, 2011, a taxi driver, Kieran Logue, picked up three fares, all male, who proceeded to hijack his vehicle and assault him. They then made off in the vehicle. It is alleged that when the vehicle was recovered, damage had been caused to it. It is further alleged that following his arrest, the respondent was conveyed in a police vehicle to which he caused damage.
7. In a letter of the 8 th July, 2015 to the respondent's solicitors, the Chief State Solicitor set out particulars of offences under the laws of the State which are said to correspond with the offences with which the respondent is charged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial