Minister for Justice v Gardener

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Finnegan
• Judgment Date: 30 July 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IESC 40
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 30 July 2007

[2007] IESC 40

THE SUPREME COURT

Kearns J.

Macken J.

Finnegan

Appeal No. 50/2007

MIN FOR JUSTICE v GARDENER

BETWEEN

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

and

ROGER MICHAEL GARDENER

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

MIN FOR JUSTICE v STAPLETON UNREP SUPREME 26.7.2007 2007 IESC 30

M (P) v DPP 2006 2 ILRM 361 2006 IESC 22

MIN JUSTICE v BRENNAN UNREP SUPREME 4.5.2007 2007 IESC 21

MIN FOR JUSTICE v ALTARAVICIUS 2006 3 IR 148

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S20

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002

Abstract:

Criminal Law - Extradition - Prosecutorial delay - Additional documents pursuant to s. 20 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003

This was an appeal from the order of the High Court that the appellant be surrendered to the UK on foot of a European Arrest Warrant. The appellant’s case on appeal was that the prosecutorial delay was unexplained and of such duration that there was a presumption of prejudice. The appellant also submitted that the High Court erred in not requiring the issuing judicial authority to provide additional documents and information pursuant to s. 20 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.

Held by the Supreme Court (Kearns, Macken and Finnegan JJ) in dismissing the appeal that the appellant had not sought to establish any fundamental defect in the system of justice of the requesting state such that the refusal of the application for surrender was necessary to protect his constitutional rights.

Reporter: R.W.

1 Judgment of Mr Justice Finnegan delivered on the 30th day of July 2007

2 This appeal from the judgment and order of Peart J of the 6th February 2007 that the appellant be surrendered to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on foot of a European Arrest Warrant dated the 18th August 2006 has to a very considerable extent been overtaken by events. The appeal was listed for hearing on the 26th July 2007 immediately after this court delivered its judgment in Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stapleton. With commendable expedition counsel had already considered that decision.

3 The relevant facts in this case can be briefly stated. The European Arrest Warrant relates in total to ten offences as follows:-

4 doing an act intended to pervert the course of justice.

5 conspiracy to commit arson.

6 attempting to obtain property by deception.

7 three offences of rape.

8 four offences of indecent assault on a female.

9 The first three offences are alleged to have been committed between the 7th August 2000 and the 9th September 2000. The offences of rape and indecent assault are alleged to have been committed between the 25th October 1987 and the 26th October 1989. The first three offences were listed for trial at the Crown Court at Newport, Wales, on 4th June 2001: the appellant did not attend. Thereafter revised charges were formulated and the warrant in respect of these charges is the basis for the European Arrest Warrant. In relation to the charges of rape and indecent assault a preliminary hearing was listed for the 1st June 2001 at Crown Court at Newport. Again the appellant did not attend.

10 The appellant's case on this appeal is that the prosecutorial delay in relation to the first three offences between the 4th June 2001 and the date of the European Arrest Warrant the 18th August 2006 and in relation to the charges...