Minister for Justice v Busby

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Denham C.J.
• Judgment Date: 12 December 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IESC 70
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 357/2013
• Date: 12 December 2014

[2014] IESC 70

THE SUPREME COURT

Denham C.J., Hardiman J., O”Donnell J., McKechnie J., Dunne J.

Appeal No. 357/2013

Between/

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent/Applicant

and

Adam Stuart Busby

Appellant/Respondent

Extradition – European arrest warrant – Prosecution – Appellant/respondent seeking to avoid extradition to the United Kingdom – Whether it is necessary to show that the executing state could prosecute the act or omission of which the offence consists on a similar basis to the jurisdiction asserted by the issuing state

Facts: The appellant/respondent, Mr Busby, the self-proclaimed leader of an extremist group called the Scottish Liberation Army, allegedly committed offences contrary to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Criminal Law Act 1977. A European arrest warrant was issued by the United Kingdom in July, 2012 and it was endorsed before the High Court. The appellant was then brought before the High Court. The European arrest warrant sought the surrender of the appellant for prosecution for offences which had been identified by the ticking of the box marked ‘terrorism’ on the warrant. The High Court (Edwards J) ordered, pursuant to s. 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, that the appellant be surrendered to such person duly authorised to receive the appellant on behalf of the United Kingdom. The High Court ordered that it was desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court on a point of law of exceptional public importance: Where an offence is deemed extra-territorial for the purposes of s. 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Acts is it necessary to show that the executing state could prosecute the act or omission of which the offence consists on a similar basis to the jurisdiction asserted by the issuing state?

Held by Denham CJ that it was not necessary to decide an extra-territorial issue in light of the question certified. Considering s. 10 of the 2003 Act, Denham CJ held that the Supreme Court must be satisfied that the requirements of the Act must be complied with, and if they are so, is bound to make the order. Denham CJ held that the Court is required to interpret the provisions of the 2003 Act as far as possible in light of, and so as not to conflict with, the Central Framework Decision of the 13th June 2002, citing Case C- 105/03 Criminal Proceedings against Pupino [2005] ECR 1-5285. Denham CJ noted that the European arrest warrant system is based on the principle of mutual recognition of the judicial decisions of the legal systems of other member states, and of mutual trust, with an assumption, as stated in Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reformv Stapleton [2008] 1 IR 669, that that the courts of the issuing member state will, as is required by Article 6.1 of the Treaty on European Union, respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Denham CJ held that this presumption does not mean that a court has no jurisdiction to consider the circumstances, relying upon Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Brennan [2007] 3 IR 732. Denham CJ further held that there is no requirement for parity of procedures between the member states, referring to Stapleton.

Denham CJ answered the question certified in the negative. Denham CJ held that parity of process is not necessary and that it is not necessary to show that the executing state could prosecute the act or omission of which the offence consists on a similar basis to the jurisdiction asserted by the issuing state.

Appeal dismissed.

Denham C.J.

Judgment delivered on the 12th day of December, 2014, by Denham C.J.

1 1. On the 29th July, 2013, the High Court (Edwards J.) ordered the surrender of Adam Stuart Busby, the appellant/respondent, referred to as ‘the appellant’, to the United Kingdom, pursuant to a European arrest warrant.

2 2. The appellant was granted bail on the 3rd March, 2014. On a medical certificate being produced, he was not required to attend at the hearing of this appeal.

3 3. A European arrest warrant was issued by the United Kingdom on the 13th July, 2012. On the 17th July, 2012, it was endorsed before the High Court. The appellant was brought before the High Court on the 18th July, 2012.

4 4. The European arrest warrant seeks the surrender of the appellant for prosecution for offences which have been identified by the ticking of the box marked ‘terrorism’ on the warrant.

5 5. The European arrest warrant certified:-

‘that the offences are not extra-territorial offences’.

6 6. The circumstances in which the alleged offences were committed by the

7 appellant by reference to the law in Scotland were as follows:-

‘Adam Busby is the self-proclaimed leader of an extremist group called the Scottish Liberation Army. His conduct giving rise to the offences is that:

1) On 27 November 2009 at the Scottish Sun Newspaper, the Guild Hall, 57 Queen Street, Glasgow he did, by means of telephone communication sent to Nicholas Sharp, an employee of the Scottish Sun Newspaper, Guild Hall, 57 Queen Street, Glasgow utter threats to said Nicholas Sharpe, did purport to represent an organisation called the Scottish National Liberation Army, and did threaten to contaminate the drinking water supplies of major English towns and cities with a noxious substance, with 'the intention of inducing in said Nicholas Sharpe, and others, a belief that there would be danger to human life and a serious risk to human health.

2) On 20 December 2009 at the Scottish Sun Newspaper, Guild Hall, 57 Queen Street, Glasgow he did by means of telephone communication send to the Scottish Sun Newspaper, Guild Hall, 57 Queen Street, Glasgow a text message, the content of which he knew or believed to be false, with the intention of inducing in employees of said Scottish Sun Newspaper a belief that various packages containing caustic, poisonous or other noxious substance had been sent to a number of political figures, including the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, which was capable of endangering human life or of creating a serious risk to human health:

Contrary to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Section -114(2)

3) On 15 April 2010 at the Press Association, 1 Central Quay, Glasgow he did communicate, by telephone, information to Victoria Mitchell, Deputy Editor of the Glasgow branch of the Press Association with the intent of inducing in her the false belief that a bomb, or other thing liable to explode or ignite, was present at the bridge at the Argyle Arcade in Glasgow.

Contrary to The Criminal Law Act 1977, Section 51(2) and (4).

4) On 15 April 2010 at the Glasgow branch of the Samaritans, 210 West George Street, Glasgow, he did communicate, by telephone,...