Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Koncis

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 24 November 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] IEHC 379
• Date: 24 November 2006

Minister for Justice v Koncis

Between:

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant

and

Kaspars Koncis

Respondent

[2006] IEHC 379

Record Number: No. 88 Ext./2006

THE HIGH COURT

CRIMINAL LAW

Extradition

Facts: The applicant sought the surrender of the respondent to the Latvian Authorities for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution against him for the offences set out in the warrant, namely, robbery, hooliganism and misappropriation. The respondent raised an issue in relation to correspondence on the basis that the narrative of the offences referred to the respondent as “a person who had done robbery before”. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that an essential ingredient of the offence was that the person be a person who had a previous conviction for robbery and such an offence did not exist in this jurisdiction and could not exist by virtue of the constitution. The respondent also raised the issue of delay and referred to the fact that there was a period of 11 months delay between the date the warrant issued and the date of the respondent’s arrest and further that the warrant related to offences allegedly committed in 2004.

Held by Peart J. in ordering the surrender of the respondent:

1. That the acts alleged in the warrant corresponded with the offences of theft and assault causing harm in this jurisdiction. The reference to the respondent having previously committed robbery was relevant only in relation to the appropriate punishment and not to guilt or innocence.

2. That the respondent failed to adduce any evidence in support of his argument based on the grounds of delay to show that the application by the Central Authority for endorsement and execution of the warrant was not made as soon as may be after it received the European Arrest Warrant.

Reporter: L.O’S.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S4

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S3

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S 21(a)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S22

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S23

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S24

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 PART III

KING v AG & DPP 1981 IR 233

CRIMINAL LAW ART 176 PART II (LATVIA)

CRIMINAL LAW ART 176 PART III (LATVIA)

CRIMINAL LAW ART 176 PART 1 (LATVIA)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD) OFFENCES ACT 2001 S13

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 17

NIKONOVS v THE GOVERNOR OF BRIXTON PRISON 2006 I AER 927

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S45

1 Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered on the 24th day of November 2006 :

2 The European arrest warrant in this case seeks the surrender of the respondent to Latvia for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution against him for offences set out therein as robbery, hooliganism and misappropriation. These offences are alleged to have been committed in May and June 2004. The warrant itself is dated 21st September 2005. The domestic warrants on foot of which it was issued are arrest warrants and are dated respectively 8th September 2004, 14th September 2004 and 7th October 2004.

3 The European arrest warrant was endorsed by the High Court on the 3rd August 2006, and thereafter the respondent was arrested here on the 22nd August 2006. He was brought before the High Court on the following day, and was thereafter remanded form time to time until the hearing of the present application.

4 Having read the details of the facts alleged to constitute the offences concerned, and it is unnecessary to set them out in any detail at this stage, it is clear that the respondent faces prosecution for offences which are the equivalent generally of offences of theft, and assault causing harm. Subject to addressing a submission on correspondence relating to the theft charges, I am satisfied that the acts alleged in the warrant would give rise to offences here of theft contrary to s. 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud) Offences Act, 2001, and of assault causing harm contrary to s. 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997.

5 No issue is raised as to identity of the respondent, and I am in any event satisfied that he is the person in respect of which the warrant has been issued. I am satisfied also that there is no reason for refusing surrender under s. 21A, 22, 23 or 24 of the Act, and again subject to addressing a submission by Kieran Kelly BL as to delay, I am satisfied that the respondent's surrender is not prohibited by anything in Part 3 of the Act or the Framework Decision.

Correspondence:

6 In relation to correspondence, Mr Kelly refers to the fact that in the narrative of the offences said to have been committed it states "At about 16.50 on...