The Extradition Acts 1965-1994, Andrew Martin v Noel Conroy and Michael Jones; Andrew Martin v Judge Miriam Malone and Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Herbert |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] IEHC 87 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 01 May 2001 |
[2001] IEHC 87
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S30
EXTRADITION (AMENDMENT) ACT 1994 (COMMENCEMENT) ORDER 1994 SI 220/1994
EXTRADITION (AMENDMENT) ACT 1994 S12
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883 S3(a)
EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883 S3(b)
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ACT 1975 S7 (UK)
NORTHERN IRELAND "GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT" (1998)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (RELEASE OF PRISONERS) ACT 1998
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47(1)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50
RSC O.84 r18
RSC O.84 r23(2)
SHANNON V IRELAND 1984 IR 548
LENNON V CLIFFORD 1992 1 IR 382
MCCORMACK V GARDA SIOCHANA COMPLAINTS BOARD 1997 2 IR 489
O'LEARY V MIN FOR TRANSPORT 2000 1 ILRM 391
EXTRADITION ACTS 1965–1994
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)(bbb)
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
CONSTITUTION ART 38.1
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6.1
QUINLIVAN V CONROY & SREENAN 1999 1 IR 271
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)(c)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47
ELLIS V O'DEA 1991 ILRM 346
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(1)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)
EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM) ACT 1987 S9
EXTRADITION (AMENDMENT) ACT 1987 S2(1)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)(a)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)(b)
EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50(2)(bb)
FUSCO V O'DEA (NO 2) 1998 3 IR 470
DALTON V GOVERNOR OF THE TRAINING UNIT UNREP SUPREME 29.2.2000
R V MULLEN 1999 2 CAR 143
HEALY, STATE V DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325
O'CONNELL, STATE V FAWSITT 1986 IR 362
C (P) V DPP 1999 2 IR 25
F (B) V DPP UNREP GEOGHEGAN 22.2.2001
CLARKE V MCMAHON 1990 1 IR 228
KAKIS V GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS 1978 1 WLR 779
K (M) V GROARKE & DPP UNREP KEARNS 13.9.2000
L (J) V DPP 2000 3 IR 122
B V DPP 1997 2 ILRM 118
DPP V BYRNE 1994 2 IR 236
HOGAN V PRESIDENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 1994 2 IR 513
MAGUIRE V KEANE 1986 ILRM 235
BOURKE V AG 1972 IR 36
KOLCZYSKI, RE 1955 1 AER 31
MAGEE V CULLIGAN 1992 1 IR 223
QUILLIGAN V CONROY & SREENAN 2000 3 IR 154
SLOAN V CULLIGAN 1992 1 IR 223
HANLON V FLEMING 1981 IR 489
FURLONG, STATE V KELLY 1971 IR 132
WYATT V MCLOUGHLIN 1974 IR 378
WILSON V SHEEHAN 1979 IR 423
Synopsis
Extradition
Extradition; lapse of time; exceptional circumstances; plaintiff, on expiry of sentence for unlawful possession of firearms, was re-arrested on foot of extradition warrants relating to alleged explosives offences in the United Kingdom; plaintiff seeking order directing his release on ground that it would be unjust, oppressive or invidious to deliver him up by reason of the lapse of time since the commission of the offence specified in the warrant and other exceptional circumstances; whether distinction to be drawn between lapse of time entirely or substantially occasioned by the deliberate and voluntary actions of a person in seeking to evade discovery and a lapse of time referable to that person serving a term of imprisonment; whether wholly unexplained lapse of seven years in issuing warrants is lapse envisaged by section 50(2)(bbb) of the Extradition Act, 1965, as amended; whether such delay is negation of plaintiff's right to trial with reasonable expedition; whether despite failure of plaintiff to demonstrate any actual or probable prejudice to his capacity to defend himself by reason of the passage of time since date of alleged offences, it would be unjust to deliver him up after such unexplained delay; whether wholly unexplained dilatoriness of Requesting Authorities in seeking extradition, together with inferred reality of real and serious risk of unfair trial amount to exceptional circumstances.
Held: Relief granted; plaintiff failed to discharge onus that normal practice to seek extradition of prisoner at determination of sentence is incorrect.
Martin v. Conroy - High Court: Herbert J. - 01/05/2001 - [2002] 1 ILRM 461
The plaintiff sought to challenge an attempt to extradite him to England on explosive offences. The offences in question had allegedly occurred in England in 1988. Warrants were issued for his arrest in England in 1995 and the plaintiff was arrested in Ireland in 1998 on foot of these warrants (the plaintiff having completed a jail sentence in this jurisdiction). Subsequently an order was made in the District Court for the delivery of the plaintiff to the English authorities. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the delay between the date of the alleged offences and the execution of the warrants (a period of 9¼ years) was unjust and oppressive and furthermore amounted to a denial of fair procedures. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that as the plaintiff was in custody serving a prison sentence at the time of the warrants were issued no lapse of time occurred. Herbert J was satisfied that there was a wholly unexplained lapse of time between the date of the alleged offences and the issuing of the warrants by the English authorities. Such a delay was a negation of the plaintiff’s right to a trial with reasonable expedition. The risk of an unfair trial had been established. These findings had amounted to “exceptional circumstances” as set out in section 50 of the Extradition Act, 1965.
Mr. Justice Herbert delivered the 1st day of May, 2001 .
It is alleged against the Plaintiff in these proceedings that in a 47 day period between the 4th November, 1988 and 22nd December, 1988, in England, he had in his possession or under his control an explosive substance, in the form of a movement activated improvised explosive device, with intent to thereby to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the United Kingdom or to enable any other person so to do. It is further alleged that in the same period the Plaintiff conspired with Nicholas Robert Neil Mullen and others to cause, by explosive substances, explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the United Kingdom.
In giving oral evidence relating to his application for a Certificate under the Attorney General's Scheme, the Plaintiff stated that he returned from London, where he had gone in the summer of 1988, to Ireland, sometime in November 1988. Though no evidence in that behalf was given by the Plaintiff, either orally or on Affidavit, it was accepted by both sides,-or at least the arguments proceeded upon the basis,-that whenever the Plaintiff returned to Ireland he lived here openly. The Plaintiff is now about 35 years of age, he is an unemployed General Operative and is unmarried. His father is living in the greater Dublin area. He has three siblings whose addresses were not given to the Court.
In June, 1990 Nicholas Robert Neil Mullen was convicted of offences similar to those alleged against the Plaintiff in these proceedings and was sentenced to a term of 30 years imprisonment. Eamon Wadley was acquitted on related charges.
The Plaintiff was arrested in this State on the 29th June, 1994 at Swanlinbar, in the County of Cavan, and was charged with the unlawful possession of firearms contrary to the provisions of Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. He was subsequently convicted of this offence and sentenced to a term of 5 years imprisonment.
On the 22nd August, 1994, by Statutory Instrument 220 of 1994, the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1994, (No. 6 of 1994), became operative in this State. This Act provided that certain offences where no longer to be regarded as “political offences” or “offences with a political connection” for the purpose of extradition to territories which included the United Kingdom.
In July, 1995 the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales received from the Metropolitan Police a file relating to the Plaintiff.
In December, 1995 the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales determined that there was a realistic prospect of obtaining a conviction against the Plaintiff.
On the 18th December, 1995 warrants were issued by Bow Street Magistrates Court in England for the arrest of the Plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(a) and Section 3(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1883, as amended by Section 7 of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1975, (England), in respect of the aforementioned allegations.
On the 22nd March, 1996 an Assistant Commissioner of An Garda Siochana authorised the execution of these warrants in this State.
On the 28th March, 1998 the Plaintiff was released from Portlaoise Prison on the expiry of his sentence and was immediately re-arrested on foot of these warrants.
On the 10th April, 1998 at Belfast an Agreement was concluded between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and a Northern Ireland which has become popularly known as the "Belfast" or "Good Friday" Agreement.
Consequent upon the provisions of this Agreement, whereby both Governments agreed to enact appropriate legislation to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of certain, "qualifying prisoners", the Criminal Justice (Release of Prisoners) Act, 1998(No. 36 of 1998), came into operation in this State on the 13th July, 1998.
On the 23rd June, 1998, District Judge Malone made Orders pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Extradition Act, 1965, (as substituted by Section 12 of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1994), for the delivery of the Plaintiff into the custody of a member of the Constables of the Metropolitan Police for conveyance to Bow Street Magistrates Court, England.
On the 24th June, 1998 the Plaintiff issued a Special Summons pursuant to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v O'Toole
...EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S47 KWOK MING WAN V CONROY 1998 3 IR 527 B(M) V CONROY (ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER) 2001 2 ILRM 311 MARTIN V CONROY 2002 1 ILRM 461 LONG V O'TOOLE 2001 3 IR 548 DPP V BYRNE 1994 2 IR 236 C (P) V DPP 1999 2 IR 25 O'C (J) V DPP 2000 3 IR 478 P (P) V DPP 2000 1 IR 403 FUSC......
-
Coleman v O'Toole
...ILRM 311 FUSCO V O'DEA (NO 2) 1998 3 IR 470 KWOK MING WAN V CONROY 1998 3 IR 527 KAKIS V GOV OF CYPRUS 1978 1 WLR 779 MARTIN V CONROY 2002 1 ILRM 461 D V DPP 1994 2 IR 465 Z V DPP 1994 2 IR 476 QUINLIVAN V CONROY (NO 2) 2000 3 IR 154 LYNCH V AG & ORS UNREP SUPREME 24.7.2003 Synopsis: ......
-
O'Keeffe v O'Toole
...was no evidence to suggest that the District Judge's order under s. 47 would have been made at any earlier date. Martin v. Conroy [2002] 1 I.L.R.M. 461 considered. 2. That, in considering an application under s. 50 of the Act of 1965, the focus needed to be plaintiff directed rather than di......
-
Kerrigan v Attorney General and Another
...GENERAL AND JOE EGAN DEFENDANTS EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S 50(2)(bbb) EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S 50 EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S 47 MARTIN v CONROY 2002 1 ILRM 461 B (M) v CONROY (ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER) 2001 2 ILRM 311 KWOK MING WAN v ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONROY 1998 3 IR 527 ELLIS v O'DEA 1990 IL......