MJELR -v- Doyle, [2009] IEHC 241 (2009)

Docket Number:2008 164 EXT
Party Name:MJELR, Doyle
Judge:Peart J.
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE HIGH COURT2008 164 EXT

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORMAPPLICANTAND

EDWARD JOHN DOYLERESPONDENTJudgment of Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered on the 22nd day of May 2009:

The surrender of the respondent is sought by a judicial authority in the United Kingdom under a European arrest warrant which issued there on the 2nd April, 2008. That warrant was endorsed for execution here by the High Court on the 19th September, 2008, and the respondent was duly arrested on foot of same on the 10th October, 2008, and thereafter brought before the High Court, as required by s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended ("the Act"). He has been remanded on bail from time to time since that date, pending the hearing of the present application for his surrender under s. 16 (1) of the Act.

The respondent was convicted in respect of two offences on the 12th October, 2006, and in respect of which, according to the warrant, he was sentenced to a period of 39 months imprisonment. The warrant indicates that he was released from prison on the 25th February, 2008 but that he failed to comply with the terms of his release, and that his surrender is sought so that he may serve the unexpired period of his sentence "between the 25th February, 2008 and the 26th May, 2009".

I should say at this point that paragraph (e) of the warrant states that the warrant is issued so that he can be prosecuted for the offences, but this is simply an error. It is quite clearly so, and that his surrender is sought so that he can serve the remainder of the sentence imposed. This error is certainly not one which invalidates the warrant.

The two offences for which he was convicted come within the category "grievous bodily injury" contained in the list of offences set forth in Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision. They have been marked as such, and therefore double criminality is not required to be verified in respect of them. Minimum gravity is also satisfied by the length of sentence imposed on the respondent.

Additional information provided by the issuing judicial authority has indicated that the respondent was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment on the charge of grievous bodily harm, and a period of 9 months for that of actual bodily harm. These sentences are consecutive sentences. According to information provided the respondent had spent 91 days in custody while on remand prior to his conviction, and the balance of sentence to be served takes that...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL