Minister for Justice v Corrigan
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Finnegan P. |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] IEHC 101 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2005 No. 45 EXT and 2005 No. 1055 JR] |
| Date | 22 March 2006 |
[2006] IEHC 101
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16
CONSTITUTION
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S40
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 ART 6
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005
EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) RECITAL 5
EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) RECITAL 6
EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) RECITAL 10
EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) RECITAL 11
EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 1.2
EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) RECITAL 12
TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION 1992 ART 60
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37
PROTOCOL 11 TO CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (RESTRUCTURING THE CONTROL MACHINERY ESTABLISHED THEREBY) 1994
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 ART 16
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 ART 17
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 ART 18
PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1952
PROTOCOL 4 TO CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (SECURING CERTAIN RIGHTS & FREEDOMS OTHER THAN THOSE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE CONVENTION & IN THE FIRST PROTOCOL THERETO) 1963
PROTOCOL 6 TO CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (CONCERNING THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY) 1983
PROTOCOL 7 TO CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1984
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF RAMDA) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 2002 EWHC 1278 (ADMIN)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 ART 28
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 ART 13
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 ART 35
KUDLA v POLAND 2000 ECHR 30210/96
LARKIN v O'DEA 1995 2 IR 485
MIN FOR JUSTICE v R (S) UNREP HIGH COURT PEART 15.11.2005 2005/38/7893
MIN FOR JUSTICE v MCARDLE UNREP HIGH COURT FINNEGAN 27.5.2005 2005/38/8012
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)(b)
EXTRADITION ACT 2003 S11(1)(c) (UK)
KOCIUKOW v DISTRICT COURT OF BIALYSTOK III PENAL DIVISION 2006 2 AER 451
KAKIS v GOVT OF REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS 1978 2 AER 634 1978 1 WLR 779
SHEFFIELD & HORSHAM v UNITED KINGDOM 1998 27 EHRR 163 1998 3 FCR 141 1998 2 FLR 928 1998 FL 731
ECKLE v GERMANY 1982 5 EHRR 1
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 ART 35
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS 1950 ART 6(1)EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13(2)(a)
P(P) v DPP 2000 1 IR 403
F (B) v DPP 2001 1 IR 656
Criminal law - Extradition - Surrender - Whether delay by UK authorities inexcusable - Extradition Arrest Warrant 2003
: The Respondent objected to his surrender pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant on the grounds of delay on the part of the prosecuting authorities in the UK, alleging that the passage of time since the commission of the offences was such that surrender would be unfair and oppressive.
Held by Finnegan P., in refusing the surrender of the respondent, that there was no delay between the issuing of the warrant and the arrest of the respondent. However, the delay of 2 years and 2 months between the last witness statement being taken and the application for the arrest warrant, was excessive and had not been explained.
Reporter: E.F.
Finnegan P. delivered on the 22nd day of March 2006.
On the 1 st September 2005 John Benedict Corrigan was arrested on foot of a European Arrest Warrant. In the proceedings firstly mentioned in the title hereof he objects to. his surrender pursuant to section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 on a number of grounds. However on the hearing the grounds relied upon were the following —
(8) The delay on the part of the prosecuting authorities in the issuing State has infringed the Respondent's right to a fair and expeditious trial in due course of law under both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
(9) The delay on the part of the Applicant has infringed the Respondent's right to a fair and expeditious trial in due course of law under both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
(10) It would be unconscionable, invidious, unfair and/or oppressive to surrender the Respondent given the unconscionable, unreasonable and unexplained delay on the part of the Applicant and the prosecuting authorities in the issuing State.
(11) The surrender of the Respondent ought to be denied pursuant to section 40 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 as the passage of time since the commission of the alleged offence is such that the Respondent could not be proceeded against within the State.
In the proceedings secondly mentioned in the title hereof on the 4 th October 2005 Mr. Corrigan was granted leave to apply for Judicial Review. At the hearing the reliefs sought and the grounds relied upon narrowed to the following -
1. An Injunction restraining the first named Respondent herein from surrendering or seeking the surrender of the Applicant on foot of the European Arrest Warrant endorsed for execution within the State on 19 th August 2005 on the grounds of inordinate and/or inexcusable delay on the part of the first named Respondent and/or the United Kingdom Police and the prosecuting authorities and/or complainants.
2. A Declaration that the extradition of the Applicant on foot of the said European Arrest Warrant would amount to a breach of his constitutional rights and his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
1. The offences alleged in the European Arrest Warrant arise from a period between 25 and 27 years prior to the Applicant's arrest. The United Kingdom Police Authorities have been aware of the allegations for a period of at least three years prior to the Applicant's arrest. The delay on the part of the first named Respondent. the United Kingdom Police and prosecuting authorities and/or complainants is as yet unexplained and as such is entirely excessive inordinate and inexcusable.
2. Accordingly the Applicant claims that:-
(a) He has been deprived of a trial in due course of law and with due expedition.
(b) He has been significantly prejudiced by the complainant delay in the bringing of the extradition and presumed subsequent criminal proceedings.
(c) He has been significantly prejudiced by the prosecutorial delay in the bringing of the presumed subsequent criminal proceedings.
(d) He has been disadvantaged in not being given any details of the reason or reasons for the lengthy delay in the making of any complaint against him.
(e) He will be unable to call potentially relevant witnesses in his defence.
(f) By reason of the passage of time the Applicant herein is left only with his plea of "not guilty" by way of a defence to the said charges.
(g) He has been unfairly subjected to anxiety and distress by reason of the various categories of delay as set out above.
(h) The Applicant's personal circumstances are now such that it would be unfair, oppressive and invidious to order his surrender particularly in the light of the delay to date.
(i) The delay since the alleged commission of the offences has been so great as to give rise to an unavoidable and incurable presumption that there has been a prejudice to the fair trial of the accused.
Essentially therefore the issues both in the proceedings pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and in the Judicial Review proceedings are the same and accordingly both proceedings were dealt with at the same time. In these circumstances in this judgment I propose to refer to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General as the Applicant and John Benedict Corrigan as the Respondent. The following issues arise out of the two sets of proceedings —
1. Has there been such delay on the part of the prosecuting authorities as to infringe the Respondent's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6.
2. Has there been such delay on the part of the prosecuting authorities as to infringe the Respondent's rights under the Constitution.
3. Has there been such delay on the part of the Applicant as to infringe the Respondent's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6.
4. Has there been such delay on the part of the Applicant as to infringe the Respondent's rights under the Constitution.
5. Would it be unconscionable, invidious, unfair and/or oppressive to surrender the Respondent given the unconscionable, unreasonable and unexplained delay on the part of the Applicant and the prosecuting authorities in the issuing State.
6. Should the surrender of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Hall
...to be raised in requesting state - State (Trimble) v Governor of Mountjoy Prison [1985] IR 550 and Minister for Justice v Corrigan [2006] IEHC 101, [2007] 2 IR 448 considered; Minister for Justice v Stapleton [2007] IESC 30, [2008] 1 IR 664 applied - Hardship - Whether family and personal c......
- Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v John Paul Brennan