Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Hall

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham J.
• Judgment Date: 07 May 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] IESC 40
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [Record No: 167/2008]
• Date: 07 May 2009

Min for Justice v Hall

Between/

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant/Respondent

and

Charles Hall

Respondent/Appellant

[2009] IESC 40

[Record No: 167/2008]

THE SUPREME COURT

EXTRADITION

Delay

Unexplained prosecutorial delay - Prejudice - Right to fair procedures and fair trial - Appropriate legal principles - Whether issues such as delay and right to fair trial matters to be raised in requesting state - State (Trimble) v Governor of Mountjoy Prison [1985] IR 550 and Minister for Justice v Corrigan [2006] IEHC 101, [2007] 2 IR 448 considered; Minister for Justice v Stapleton [2007] IESC 30, [2008] 1 IR 664 applied - Hardship - Whether family and personal circumstances factors which court can take into account - Whether hardship more appropriate to plea in mitigation - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45) - Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Appeal dismissed; surrender ordered (167/2008 -SC - 7/5/2009) [2009] IESC 40

Minster for Justice v Hall

Facts: the High Court made an order for the surrender of the respondent under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds: that the trial judge erred in finding that the arrest of the respondent was valid; that the trial judge erred in finding that an objection to surrender based on delay could not be considered and; that the judge erred in finding that the family and personal circumstances of the respondent could not be factors which the Court could take into account when considering whether or not an order for surrender should be made.

Held by the Supreme Court (Denham J; Kearns and Macken JJ concurring) in dismissing the appeal that no factors existed so as to undermine the validity of the arrest of the respondent. That the Act of 2003 had to be interpreted, so far as possible, in accordance with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.

That there could be situations where a court in the requested state could consider the issue of delay, depending on the circumstances. However, in general, issues such as prosecutorial delay and its consequences were more appropriately litigated in the requesting state. That presumption was based on the existence of remedies such as access to judicial review or a process to review an allegation of abuse of process. It was grounded on foundation of the mutual trust of the European Arrest Warrant scheme.

Minister for Justice v Stapleton [2008] 1 IR 649 applied.

Reporter: P.C.

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

TRIMBOLE, STATE v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1985 IR 550

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S112

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S5

MIN FOR JUSTICE v STAPLETON 2008 1 IR 669 2008 1 ILRM 267 2007/41/8499 2007 IESC 30

MIN FOR JUSTICE v CORRIGAN 2007 2 IR 448 2006/40/8426 2006 IEHC 101

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

Denham J.

Judgment delivered by Denham J. [Nem diss]

1 This matter arises under the European Arrest Warrant Act,2003, as amended. It is an appeal by Charles Hall, the respondent/appellant, "the appellant", from the order and judgment of the High Court (Peart J.) on the 30^th May, 2008, which ordered that the appellant be surrendered to such person duly authorised by the United Kingdom to receive him.

2 The order relates to five offences. Two convictions under which the appellant is sought to serve sentences of imprisonment for receiving stolen goods. Also, the appellant is accused of three offences being: (i) escape from lawful custody, and, in the alternative, (ii) stealing a Land Rover, or (iii) receiving it as stolen goods.

3 The High Court ordered the surrender of the appellant to the United Kingdom.

4 The appellant has appealed against that order. The grounds of the appeal are:-

5 1. The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in finding that the arrest of the appellant was valid.

6 2. The learned trial judge erred in finding that an objection to surrender based on delay cannot be considered by the Court.

7 3. The learned trial judge erred in law in finding that the family and personal circumstances of the appellant cannot be factors which the Court can take into account when considering whether or not an order should be made under s.16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act,2003.

8 The first issue raised on the appeal is the arrest of the appellant. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the European Arrest Warrant was executed while the appellant was being detained, having been arrested in relation to a separate and unrelated matter. This unrelated matter has not been proceeded with by the State. It was alleged that the detention of the appellant in Tallaght Garda Station was for the sole purpose of executing the European Arrest Warrant. It was claimed that the State never had the intention to proceed with the unrelated matter and that the appellant's arrest and detention was unlawful. Reference was made to The State (Trimble) v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison [1985] I.R. 550.

9 6. There was affidavit evidence before the High Court as to the circumstances of the arrest of the appellant on the unrelated matter. Garda McGuinness deposed that the appellant had stated that his car had been stolen and he gave a name of Alan Rees as the person who had taken the vehicle. Garda McGuinness spoke with Alan Rees who admitted taking the vehicle and described where he had left it, beside Cruagh Woods. Garda McGuinness located the car and the keys. Later Garda McGuinness took a statement from Alan Rees who outlined the circumstances of his taking the vehicle and admitted taking the vehicle without permission of the owner. Mr. Rees also stated that he received threatening phone calls from the appellant, threatening that if he, the appellant, did not get his car back he would kill Alan Rees. Garda McGuinness sought instructions, which resulted in directions to prosecute Mr. Rees contrary to s.112 of the Road Traffic Act,1961, as amended, and to prosecute the appellant for an offence contrary to s.5 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Persons Act, 1997 for threats made to Mr. Rees. According to the affidavit evidence Mr. Rees was charged on the 11^th November, 2007. Garda McGuinness was contacted by Sergeant Linehan of the Garda Extradition Unit who had noticed on the PULSE system that Charles Hall was a victim of a crime. Sergeant Linehan told Garda McGuinness that there was a European Arrest Warrant in existence for Charles Hall which they wished to execute. Garda McGuinness explained that they planned to arrest Charles Hall on the 13^th November, 2007, for a charge. On the 13^th November, 2007 the appellant arrived in Tallaght Garda Station at an arranged time, he was charged with an offence under s.5 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, and he received bail to appear before Tallaght District Court. Sergeant Linehan arrested the appellant outside Tallaght Garda Station and executed the European...