Minister for Justice & Equality v T.E. (No 2)

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Edwards
Judgment Date24 January 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] IEHC 51
CourtHigh Court
Date24 January 2014

[2014] IEHC 51

THE HIGH COURT

No. 175 EXT./2013
Min for Justice v E (T) (No 2)
APPROVED
Mr. Justice Edwards
JUDGMENT
IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 (AS AMENDED)
Between/
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE & EQUALITY
Applicant
-AND-
T.E.(No 2)
Respondent

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

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 S45

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S21(A)

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)(NO.2) SI 130/2004 ART 2

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 (DESIGNATED MEMBER STATES)(NO.2) SI 130/2004 SCHED

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 20032003 PART 3

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S44

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT 2010 S8

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S71

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S70

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BAILEY UNREP SUPREME 1.3.2012 2012/25/7268 2012 IESC 16

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BUSBY UNREP EDWARDS 30.7.2013 2013 IEHC 455

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

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(11)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S72(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S72(2)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S72(5)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1994 S31

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MONEY LAUNDERING & TERRORIST FINANCING) ACT 2010 S7

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S70(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMDT) ACT 2009 S6

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S72(3)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2009 S4

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S71(1)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S71(2)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2006 S71(2)(A)

ELLIS v O'DEA (NO.2) 1991 1 IR 251

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 20032003 PART 3

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1)

European law - Criminal law - European arrest warrant-Surrender - Reciprocity - Objection - Evidence - Acts of procuring - Republic of France - European arrest warrant Act, 2003

Facts: The respondent was the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the Republic of France and objected to her surrender on the basis of s. 44 of the European arrest warrant Act, 2003, as amended on the basis of the lack of reciprocity of the enforceability of warrant in relation to extra-territorial offences. It had been alleged that she had in Ireland knowingly received funds from acts procuring and or by being part of a highly structured organization committing acts of procuring.

Held by Edwards J. that the respondent had not been able to demonstrate the existence of the two requirements to be established for a valid invocation of s. 44 of the European arrest warrant Act, 2003, as amended and the Court would decline to uphold the objections. It was not a matter for the Court to be concerned with whether the prosecuting authorities in France would treat the laundering and conspiracy offences as alternatives.

1

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Edwards delivered on the 24th day of January 2014

Introduction:
2

The respondent is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the Republic of France on the 11 th July, 2013. The warrant was endorsed by the High Court for execution in this jurisdiction on the 16 th July, 2013, and it was duly executed on the 26 th July, 2013. The respondent was arrested by Sergeant K. on that date, following which she 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 matter was adjourned from time to time, ultimately coming before the Court for the purposes of a surrender hearing.

3

The respondent does not consent to her surrender to the Republic of France. Accordingly, this Court is now being asked by the applicant to make an order pursuant to s. 16 of the Act of 2003 directing that the respondent be surrendered to such person as is duly authorised by the issuing state to receive her. The Court must consider whether the requirements of s. 16 of the Act of 2003, both controversial and uncontroversial, have been satisfied and this Court's jurisdiction to make an order directing that the respondent be surrendered is dependant upon a judicial finding that they have been so satisfied.

Uncontroversial s. 16 issues
4

The Court has received an affidavit of Sergeant K. sworn on the 15 th October, 2013 testifying as to his arrest of the respondent and as to the questions he asked of the respondent to establish the respondent's identity. In addition, counsel for the respondent has confirmed that no issue arises as to either the arrest or identity of the respondent.

5

The Court has also received and has scrutinised a true copy of the European arrest warrant in this case. Further, the Court has taken the opportunity to inspect the original European arrest warrant which is on the Court's file and which bears this Court's endorsement.

6

I am satisfied following my consideration of these matters that:

7

(a) The European arrest warrant was endorsed for execution in this State in accordance with s. 13 of the Act of 2003;

8

(b) The warrant was duly executed;

9

(c) The person who has been brought before the Court is the person in respect of whom the European arrest warrant was issued;

10

(d) The warrant is in the correct form;

11

(e) The warrant purports to be a prosecution type warrant and the respondent is wanted in France for trial in respect of the two offences particularised in Part E of the warrant as follows:

12

· "- laundering, as an organised criminal gang, by investment, concealment or conversion, of the proceeds of the crimes of procuring and/or of living off immoral earnings, committed as an organised criminal gang, and of trafficking in human beings, committed as an organised criminal gang;

13

· - criminal conspiracy for the purposes of preparing to commit the crimes of procuring and/or of living off immoral earnings, committed as an organised criminal gang and of trafficking in human beings, committed as an organised criminal gang."

14

(f) The underlying domestic decision on which the warrant is based is an arrest warrant issued on the 18 th June, 2012 by Judge G. Examining Magistrate in Lyon, France.

15

(g) The issuing judicial authority has invoked para. 2 of article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, O.J. L190/1 18.7.2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Framework Decision") in respect of both offences listed in Part E, by the ticking of the box in Part E.I of the warrant relating to "Participation in a Criminal Organisation", and also the box relating to "Laundering of the Proceeds of Crime". Accordingly, subject to the Court being satisfied that the invocation of para. 2 of article 2 is valid (i.e. that the minimum gravity threshold is met, and that there is no basis for believing that there has been some gross or manifest error), it need not concern itself with correspondence;

16

(h) The minimum gravity threshold in a case in which para. 2 of article 2 of the Framework Decision is relied upon is that which now finds transposition into Irish domestic law within s. 38(1)(b) of the Act of 2003, as amended, namely that under the law of the issuing state the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum period of not less than three years. It is clear from Part C (1) of the warrant, read in conjunction with the information concerning the nature and legal classification of the offences set out within Part E that both offences carry a potential penalty of up to ten years imprisonment, and up to twice that term of imprisonment in the case of repetition of the offences. Accordingly, the minimum gravity threshold is comfortably met;

17

(i) The description of the circumstances in which the offences in question were committed as set out in the warrant is as follows:

"Following several complaints made by Nigerian prostitutes regarding the acts of violence committed against them, they brought to the attention of the judicial authorities that they had been taken to Italy, then to France and had afterwards been forced into prostitution in order to repay an imaginary debt in the amount of 50,000 Euros."

18

Investigations revealed that several procuresses known by the name 'Mama' participated in networks transporting young Nigerian women for the purposes of forcing them into a life of prostitution in France and notably in Grenoble (Isere, France).

19

Financial analyses revealed that the funds handed over by the victims, from which the 'Mamas' benefited and which were in the amounts representing several tens of thousands of Euros, transited via T.E.'s bank accounts in Ireland before being transferred to Nigeria. The procuresses asked her to carry out the transfers of funds by Western Union Money Order. By knowingly receiving on a very regular basis the sums gathered in this way by the procuresses so as to send those funds to Nigeria by means of a financial arrangement of her own devising, T.E. permitted the conversion of the proceeds of acts of procuring. By engaging in such collections of funds she herself is also a part of a highly structured organisation committing acts of procuring. The offences of which she is accused were committed in Grenoble, (Isere, France) on French national territory and on an indivisible basis in Nigeria and in Ireland, between 1st April 2008 and 14 th March 2011, and at all events within a time period to which the Statute of Limitations does not yet apply."

20

There is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Minister for Justice v D.S.
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 9 June 2015
    ...examine its law as if the circumstances of the offence were reversed.’ 39 Edwards J. in Minister for Justice and Equality v. T.E. (No. 2) [2014] IEHC 51 applied the Bailey principles to the case before him. He said at para. 13: ‘[t]here are two conditions that the respondent must satisfy if......
  • The Minister for Justice and Equality v E.S.
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 19 June 2014
  • Ali Charaf Damache v DPP and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 January 2014
    ...FRAUD OFFICE 2007 QB 727 MIN FOR JUSTICE v E(T) UNREP EDWARDS 19.6.2013 2013 IEHC 323 MIN FOR JUSTICE v E(T) UNREP EDWARDS 24.1.2014 2014 IEHC 51 EXTRADITION ACT 2003 (UK) PART 2 Judicial review - Criminal law - Terrorism offences - Extradition – Decision not to prosecute - Reasons for deci......
  • Minister for Justice and Equality v J. A. T
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 9 May 2014
  • 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