Minister for Justice Equality & Law Reform v Wharrie

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham C.J.
• Judgment Date: 27 October 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IESC 63
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 75/2009 SC
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 27 October 2016

[2016] IESC 63

THE SUPREME COURT

Denham C.J.

Denham C. J.

O'Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

Clarke J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

O'Malley J.

Appeal No. 75/2009 SC

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

AND

PERRY WHARRIE

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

Adjournment – European arrest warrant – Notice of appeal – Appellant seeking an adjournment to bring an application to seek to amend the notice of appeal so as to raise a new argument – Whether a respondent may argue that surrender is not permitted by reason of new circumstances which arise after a s. 16 order is made and before surrender

Facts: Counsel for the respondent/appellant, Mr Wharrie, recognised that the grounds of appeal in this case had been overtaken by the decision of the Supreme Court in Balmer v Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IESC 25 and that the appeal as formulated must fail. Counsel for the respondent/appellant applied to the Supreme Court for an adjournment to bring an application to seek to amend the notice of appeal so as to raise a new argument related to the prospective exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union and therefore the European Arrest Warrant Scheme, given that his surrender had been postponed pursuant to s. 18 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, while he serves a sentence in Ireland's jurisdiction which will not be spent until 2020 approximately.

Held by Denham CJ that, having considered that during the course of discussions, counsel for the applicant/respondent, the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform, stated that a respondent may argue that surrender is not permitted by reason of new circumstances which arise after a s. 16 order is made and before surrender, and the fact that there is a pre-existing s. 16 order will not be a bar, the Court refused the application for an adjournment.

Denham CJ held that the Court would dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Ruling of the Court ( ex tempore) delivered on the 27th October, 2016, by Denham C.J.

1 Counsel for the respondent/appellant recognised that the grounds of appeal in this case have been overtaken by the recent decision of this Court in Balmer v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IESC 25 and that the appeal as formulated must fail.

2 Counsel for the respondent/appellant applied to the Court for an adjournment to bring an application to seek to amend the notice of appeal so as to...