Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stuina

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 20 June 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 220
• Court: High Court
• Date: 20 June 2007

[2007] IEHC 220

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: No. 52 Ext./2007

MIN FOR JUSTICE v STUINA

Between:

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant

and

Romualdas Stuina

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 S22

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S23

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S24

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S21(a)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 PART III

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S79

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BALCIUNAS 2007 1 ILRM516 2007 IEHC 34

MIN FOR JUSTICE v OSTROVSKIJ UNREP PEART 26.6.2006 2006 IEHC 242

CRIMINAL LAW

Extradition

European Arrest Warrant - Presumption that decision made to charge person sought to be surrendered - Whether presumption rebutted - Standard required to rebut presumption - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), s 21A - Order for surrender of respondent (2007/52EXT - Peart J - 20/6/2007) [2007] IEHC 220

Minister for Justice v Stuina

the applicant sought the surrender of the respondent to the Republic of Lithuania on foot of a European arrest warrant which was endorsed for execution by the High Court. The respondent was remanded in custody to await the outcome of the application for his surrender. The offences in respect of which the surrender in sought were of rape and attempted rape. No affidavit of Lithuanian law had been filed. Issues arose over the rebuttal of the presumption that a decision to prosecute the respondent had been made.

Held by Mr Justice Peart that the court was entitled to assume that when a judicial authority requests a European arrest warrant that it is not doing so for a purpose other than that for which the framework decision was adopted. Order sought under section 16 of the Act was ordered.

Reporter: E.C.

1 Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered on the 20th day of June 2007:

2 The surrender of the respondent is sought to the Republic of Lithuania on foot of a European arrest warrant which issued there on the 14 ^th September 2005. It was received here in March 2007, and was endorsed for execution by the High Court on the 20 ^th March 2007. Thereafter on the 25 ^th April 2007 the respondent was duly arrested and brought before the High Court pursuant to the requirements of s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 as amended ("the Act"). Thereafter he was remanded ion custody to await the outcome of the present application under s. 16 of the Act for his surrender.

3 The respondent's identity has not been put in issue and the Court is in any event satisfied from the information available that the person who has been arrested and brought before the Court is the person in respect of which the warrant has been issued.

4 The offences in respect of which his surrender is sought are of rape and attempted rape. The requesting authority has ticked two categories of offence in the list of offences set forth in Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision, namely "sexual exploitation of children" and "rape". The facts described in the warrant which are said to give rise to the charges being brought certainly fall within these categories, and in such circumstances double criminality does not require to be verified. In fact no submission to the contrary is urged on the respondent's behalf. The minimum gravity requirement of the Act is also satisfied in respect of the charges in question.

5 I am satisfied that there is no reason under sections, 22, 23 or 24 of the Act to refuse to order surrender, but an issue has been raised by way of rebuttal of the presumption contained in s. 21A of the Act, and I will come to that issue in due course.

6 I am satisfied also that the surrender of the respondent is not prohibited by any provision of Part III of the Act or of the Framework Decision.

7 Subject therefore to dealing with the very nett point raised by the respondent the Court is satisfied that the order of surrender should be made.

Point of Objection:

8 No affidavit of Lithuanian law has been filed by the respondent. However, it is submitted that there is sufficient evidence within the terms of the warrant itself that no decision has yet been taken by the authorities in the requesting state to...