The Attorney General v Davis
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Denham C.J.,Charleton,O'Malley J.J. |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] IESCDET 31 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 13 March 2017 |
[2017] IESCDET 31
An Chúirt Uachtarach
The Supreme Court
DETERMINATION
Denham C.J.
Charleton
O'Malley J.J.
This determination concerns a decision of the Court of Appeal made on the 28th day of February 2017; judgement of Mahon J, Birmingham and Edwards JJ concurring [2017] IECA 50. On that appeal only one point was argued on behalf of Gary Davis, the applicant for leave, and that was the point which sought to reverse the decision of McDermott J in the High Court, [2016] IEHC 497, whereby Gary Davis was permitted to be extradited to the United States of America:
The effects of incarceration in the U.S., both pre trial and following sentence if convicted upon the appellant as a person with Asperger's Syndrome suffering from depression and anxiety.
(i) The learned trial judge erred in deciding that surrender of the appellant for extradition did not give rise to a real risk of a violation of his Article 40.3 rights under the Constitution and of his rights under Article 3 ECHR.
(ii) The learned trial judge erred in deciding that the surrender of the appellant for extradition did not give rise to a real risk of a violation of his rights under Article 8 ECHR and his rights under Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution to the integrity of the human mind and personality.
In the High Court there was varying evidence as to the medical condition of Gary Davis. He had been sought by the United States of America on an extradition request of the 13th of January 2014 on 3 charges relating to narcotics trafficking, computer hacking and money-laundering, all of which carried as an alternative the conspiracy count based on the same facts. If returned to the United States of America for trial on these offences, it was highly probable that he would be imprisoned pending trial for a period between 6 months and 18 months. If convicted, he faced up to 19 years and 7 months imprisonment in respect of the 3rd count with severe penalty also being applicable in respect of the others.
In the High Court, McDermott J had decided that Gary Davis suffered from a variety of conditions, and most especially Asperger's syndrome and other ailments.
The view taken by the Court of Appeal was that the decision in the High Court of McDermott J was binding and that as the appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal under s. 29 of the Extradition Act 1965, as amended, was confined to a point of law, that the court was bound by what the High Court had decided and that, consequently, the order of the High Court could not be reversed. From paragraphs 39 on the judgement of the Court of Appeal concluded that ‘the trial judge's lengthy and very comprehensive judgement’ had set out the detail of the applicant's personal circumstances, the likely type of incarceration in the United States of America and the medical facilities available therein. Consequently, it was concluded by the Court of Appeal that there could be no interference with this judgement:
39. I am satisfied that the primary submission made by the respondent is entirely valid, (see para. 32). The decision of the learned trial judge (in so far as it relates to the ground of appeal pursued) is based on a fact or facts found by him following a detailed and thorough consideration of evidence and information, including medical evidence and evidence relating to the U.S. federal prison system. This appeal effectively invites the court to reach a different conclusion on the same evidence to that of the High Court.
40. That being so, this appeal seeks to review the judgment and order of the High Court in a manner which is not permitted in law. The subject matter of the appeal is not based upon a point of law. Arguably, the other original grounds of appeal may have satisfied that point of law pre-condition, but these were not proceeded with, and, I believe, wisely so.
41. However, even if this court was empowered to review the learned High Court judge's findings of fact and her decision based thereon, I would not reach a different conclusion that that of the High Court. In so stating I wish to emphasise that I in no way seek to diminish or trivialise the very real concerns and worries of the appellant and his family as he faces the prospect of extradition to the U.S. and being imprisoned there. Such a prospect would be daunting for an individual in robust mental health let alone someone coping with a significant mental health condition such as the appellant.
42. It is to be hoped that the extent to which the issue relating to the appellant's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome has been debated and considered in these proceedings, and the assurances provided by the U.S. authorities will reduce those concerns to an appreciable degree.
43. For the reasons stated I would dismiss the appeal.
Central...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Attorney General v Davis
...whether in this case the condition of the respondent was so severe in fact that, as a matter of law, he could not be extradited (see [2017] IESCDET 31). Held by the Supreme Court (O'Donnell, McKechnie, Mac Menamin, Dunne and O'Malley JJ.), in dismissing the appeal, 1, that for the purposes ......