Quinlivan v Conroy (No 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Kelly
• Judgment Date: 14 April 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IEHC 50
• Date: 14 April 2000
• Docket Number: [1995 No. 759 Sp.; 1998No. 303 J.R.]

[2000] IEHC 50

THE HIGH COURT

No. 759 SP/1995

No.303 JR/1998

QUINLIVAN v. CONROY & SREENAN

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 1965– 1994

BETWEEN

NESSAN QUINLIVAN

PLAINTIFF

AND

NOEL CONROY AND HUGH SREENAN

DEFENDANTS

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

NESSAN QUINLIVAN

APPLICANT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENT

Citations:

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50

CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977 S1 (UK)

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883 S3(1)(a)

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S18

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S11

EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM) ACT 1987 S3

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 PART III

EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM) ACT 1987 S4

EXTRADITION (AMDT) ACT 1994 S1(3)(b)

SHANNON V FANNING 1984 IR 569

CASTIONI, IN RE 1891 1 QB 149

MAGUIRE V KEANE 1986 1 ILRM 235

MCGLINCHEY V WREN 1982 IR 154

FINUCANE V MACMAHON 1990 1 IR 165

BOURKE V AG 1972 IR 36

EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM) ACT 1987 S1(4)

EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM) ACT 1987 S3(1)

EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM) ACT 1987 S3(2)

EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM) ACT 1987 S3(3)

EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM) ACT 1987 S1

ARCHER V FLEMING UNREP FINLAY 21.1.1980 1980/1/1

CLARKE V MCMAHON 1990 1 IR 228

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)

KWOK MING WAN V CONROY 1998 3 IR 527

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30

DPP V KAVANAGH UNREP BARR 29.10.1997 1998/15/5591

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1

CONSTITUTION ART 38.1

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6(1)

LANGAN V O'DEA UNREP KELLY 10.10.1997 1998/23/9008

KAKIS V REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS 1978 1 WLR 779

FUSCO V O'DEA 1994 2 IR 101, 1994 2 ILRM 389

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (RELEASE OF PRISONERS) ACT 1998

MAGEE V O'DEA 1994 1 IR 500

D V DPP 1994 ILRM 435

NORTHERN IRELAND "GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT" (1998)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1960

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)(bbb)

Synopsis

Extradition; conspiracy; escape from custody; four warrants issued in United Kingdom; warrants issued prior to 5th April 1994; District Court had ordered that applicant be delivered into custody of relevant police forces; applicant now seeks relief by way of special summons and by way of judicial review; whether warrants related to political offences or to offences connected with a political offence; whether there was correspondence of offences; whether request for extradition defeated by delay; whether there were other exceptional circumstances which would render it unjust to deliver the applicant under the Act; Extradition Act, 1965; Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987; whether "Good Friday" agreement made extradition redundant.

Held: Applications dismissed.

Quinlivan v. Conroy & Sreenan - High Court: Kelly J. - 14/04/2000 - [2000] 3 IR 154 - [2000] 2 ILRM 515

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Kelly delivered the 14th day of April 2000

INTRODUCTION

2 In April 1993 four warrants were issued by Judicial authorities in England and Wales for the arrest of Nessan Quinlivan. He is the Plaintiff in the first of these proceedings in which he seeks relief pursuant to the provisions of Section 50 of the Extradition Act, 1965, as amended. He is the Applicant in the second proceedings which are Judicial Review proceedings. The proceedings were heard together and I will throughout this judgment refer to Mr. Quinlivan as the Applicant.

3 Two of the English warrants were issued by His Honour Judge Verney, a judge of the Crown Court sitting at the Central Criminal Court in London. The first of them recites that the Applicant stood indicted in the Central Criminal Court on a charge that he with Pearse McCauley and William McKane, on divers days before the 12th day of November 1990, within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, conspired together and with others to murder Sir Charles Henderson Tidbury and other persons contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act, 1977. The second of Judge Verney's warrants also recites that the Applicant stood indicted in the Central Criminal Court on a charge that with the same persons on divers dates before the 12th day of November 1990 within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, he conspired with them and with others to cause, by explosive substances, explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the United Kingdom contrary to section 3(l)(a)of the Explosive Substances Act, 1883.

4 The two remaining warrants were issued by Mr. Ronald Bartle a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Justice for the Inner London area. The first of these allege that on the 7th day of July 1991 at Her Majesty's Prison, Brixton, the Applicant, whilst in lawful custody on a criminal charge awaiting trial, escaped from that custody contrary to common law. The final warrant alleges that the Applicant on the 7th day of July 1991 at Brixton Hill, London, unlawfully and maliciously wounded Malcolm Hugh David Kemp with intent to do him grievous bodily harm contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861.

5 All four warrants were backed for execution in this jurisdiction pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Extradition legislation and the Applicant was arrested on foot of the warrants on the 6th day of November 1995.

6 On the 11th day of December 1995 the President of the District Court ordered that the Applicant be delivered into the custody of a member of the relevant police forces in England for conveyance to the appropriate London Courts which issued the warrants.

7 In these proceedings the Applicant seeks to be relieved of the consequences of the Orders made by the District Court and asks for his release.

8 In the course of this judgment I will have to consider the many points which were made by Counsel on behalf of the Applicant but before doing so it is necessary that I set forth the evidence which was adduced on the hearing in some detail. In the course of so doing I will also deal with the legal objections which were taken to the admissibility of such evidence. The proceedings were heard together and it was agreed that the evidence adduced in one of the proceedings could be considered in the other and vice versa.

THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCES

9 In his affidavit grounding the application under Section 50 of the Extradition Act, the Applicant says that the conspiracy charges arise out of a campaign of violence which was conducted by the Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.) in England in 1990 during which, inter alia, Mr. Ian Gow M.P. was murdered, a former Governor of Gibraltar was shot and wounded and one soldier was shot dead and two others wounded at Lichfield Railway Station. He also says that in the course of their investigations into I.R.A. activities in England the police there had earlier found a list of intended I.R.A. targets, which included Sir Charles Tidbury. He says that Sir Charles Tidbury was a prominent businessman in England. He was a former chairman of Whitbread, the brewers, which under his chairmanship was allegedly a major contributor to the funds of the British Conservative Party.

10 The Applicant was arrested at Stonehenge in England with one Pearse McCauley on the 2nd October 1990. He says that the police immediately let it be known that they were suspected of the murder of Mr. Gow and of being members of an I.R.A. active service unit that was involved in several serious offences around that time. They were taken to Paddington Green Police Station and were questioned by members of the Anti-Terrorist Branch. He says that the whole tenor of his questioning made it clear that the conspiracy charges relate to the I.R.A. campaign and accordingly they are "political offences". He exhibits extracts from the contemporaneous accounts made by the police during the questioning of the Applicant and Pearse McCauley. The Applicant also exhibited an extract from a contemporaneous record made by the English police of the questioning of his alleged co-conspirator William McKane and his wife. Mr. McKane was tried on the conspiracy charges and acquitted. He says that these extracts further demonstrate the political nature of the alleged conspiracy charges on foot of which his extradition is sought.

11 The Applicant and Pearse McCauley were held on remand at Brixton Prison. Whilst there, it is alleged they were approached by a named prison officer who encouraged them to attempt to escape and indicated that he would assist them to that end. He says that that prison officer was a former member of the S.A.S. and was working as an informant for a Detective Sergeant of the Staffordshire Police Special Branch. He says that the prison officer was acting as a spy and agent provocateur for the British Anti-Terrorist Police or the Security Services otherwise known as MI5.

12 The Applicant and McCauley were suspicious of the prison officer when he first suggested escaping. However, the prison officer repeated his suggestion on a number of occasions and went to considerable lengths to gain their confidence. He advised them that the best time to effect an escape would be when returning from Mass on Sunday and he told them of what he believed to be the weakest point of the prison's perimeter wall. He promised to supply them with a map of that section of the prison and to smuggle in a gun which he recommended would be essential to carrying out the plan. He also said that he could arrange for transport to be waiting for them outside the prison when they escaped. This prison officer was transferred from Brixton Prison before the arrangements were completed but it was by utilising the plan suggested by him that they effected their escape on the 7th July 1991. It is that escape that...