The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Stafford

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 14 February 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] IEHC 63
• Docket Number: No. 7 Ext./2005
• Court: High Court
• Date: 14 February 2006

[2006] IEHC 63

THE HIGH COURT

No. 7 Ext./2005

MIN FOR JUSTICE v STAFFORD

Between:

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Applicant

and

Martin Stafford

Respondent

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S6

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(e)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(2)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S20(1)

CONSTITUTION ART 38.1

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 & EXTRADITION ACTS 1965 TO 2001) 2005 SI 23/2005 ART2(3)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1)(c)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16(1)(d)

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 2

NON-FATAL OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1997 S4

CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) (AMDT) ACT 1990 S2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S72(a)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)(a)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)(b)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)(c)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)(d)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)(e)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)(f)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S11(1A)(g)

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) PREAMBLE PARA 5

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) PREAMBLE PARA 6

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) PREAMBLE PARA 10

EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003) ART 1.2

AG v PARKE UNREP SUPREME 6.12.2004 2004/3/577

EXTRADICTION ACT 1965 PART III

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S20

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 PART III

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S21A

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S22

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S23

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S24

EXTRADITION

European arrest warrant

Correspondence - Whether arrest warrant valid - Principle of mutual recognition - AG v Parke [2004] IESC 100 (Unrep, SC,6/12/2004) followed - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45) - Surrender granted (2005/7Ext - Peart J - 14/2/2006)[2006] IEHC 63 Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Stafford

Facts: section 11(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 provides that “A European Arrest Warrant shall, in so far as practicable, be in the form set out in the Annex to the Framework Decision.” The said annexed form provides at paragraph (e) “Description of the circumstances in which the offence(s) was (were) committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence(s) by the requested person”. The respondent was brought before the High Court on foot of a European arrest warrant issued forth of Bow Street Magistrates Court in England in respect of six offences. The applicant sought an order pursuant to section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 for the surrender of the applicant to England on foot of that warrant. The respondent resisted the application on the grounds, inter alia, that there was a defect in the form of the warrant in that it did not specify any or any adequate description of the circumstances in which the offences were committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offences by the respondent. The respondent also complained that the applicant had failed to make out any correspondence between the offences referred to in the warrant and any offences known to Irish law.

Held by Mr Justice Peart in making an order under section 16(1) of the Act of 2003 for the surrender of the respondent to the United Kingdom that the principle of mutual recognition of European arrest warrants referred to in the Framework Decision had to be interpreted in a way which precluded the High Court, except in the most obvious inadequacy and failure to make any link between the person named in the warrant and the alleged offence, from seeking to go behind the description of the circumstances in which the offences were allegedly committed contained in paragraph (e) of the warrant and in so doing questioning the bona fides of the warrant signed by the issuing judge. What was required to be included in paragraph (e) of the warrant was a description of the circumstances in which the offences were committed and there was no requirement that a particular level of involvement of the requested person be described in the sense of having to pass a certain threshold of involvement so as to show anything like a prima facie case. The offences referred to in the warrant corresponded to offences in the State.

Reporter: P.C.

Judgment of

Mr Justice Michael Peart

1 The respondent was arrested and brought before this Court on the 12th April 2005 on foot of a European Arrest Warrant issued forth of Bow Street Magistrates Court in London, England dated the 18th March 2005. This warrant had been duly transmitted to the Central Authority in this State, namely the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as provided by s. 6 of the 2003 Act, and was endorsed for execution by Order of this Court made on the 25th March 2005 following an application for endorsement made by the Central Authority.

2 The arresting officer is Sgt. Anthony Linehan of An Garda Siochana, and he has filed an affidavit in relation to the arrest of the respondent for the purpose of this application now for an order under s. 16 (1) of the 2003 Act for the delivery of the respondent to the appropriate person in the issuing State, the United Kingdom, authorised to receive him.

3 In the said warrant there are six offences set forth in respect of which the respondent's surrender to the United Kingdom is sought. These are unlawful wounding, kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, sexual touching, and murder.

4 Following the bringing of the respondent before the Court following his arrest on the 12th April 2005, the respondent was remanded from time to time and this application was heard by me on the 22nd July 2005. Points of Objection had been filed and delivered on the 26th April 2005. These points were as follows:

5 1. That there is no evidence to substantiate offences 2 to 6 inclusive, namely kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, sexual touching and murder.

6 2. That the Warrant is not in the form required by section 11(1) of the 2003 Act and in particular is not in the form set out in the Annex to the Framework decision in that it does not specify any or any adequate description of the circumstances in which the offences were committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offences by the requested person.

7 3. That there is insufficient information provided in relation to the aforesaid offences 2 to 6 inclusive and the warrant does not comply with the provisions of the 2003 Act, and in particular section 11(e) and section 11(2) thereof.

8 4. That the Court should pursuant to section 20(1) of the 2003 Act require the issuing judicial authority to provide it with appropriate additional documentation or information.

9 5. That the applicant is required to prove the relevant correspondence in relation to the offences appearing in the warrant.

10 6. That Mr Stafford is currently charged with offences in this jurisdiction and has been remanded in custody by the District Court.

11 7. That the surrender of the respondent would constitute a contravention of the Constitution and in particular Article 38.1 thereof.

12 Michael O'Higgins SC for the respondent applied at the hearing of this application before me for liberty to amend his Points of Objection by adding two additional points. Firstly he submitted that given that the respondent was arrested on the 12th April 2005 and brought before the Court, the 60 day time limit (or in some circumstances 90 days) specified by the Framework Decision has expired. At the time, that point was the subject of an appeal before the Supreme Court. It was suggested by Counsel for the respondent that it would be appropriate to await the decision of the Supreme Court on the point, before delivery of this judgment, as it could affect the capacity of this Court to make the order sought herein, even if this Court is otherwise satisfied that an order should be made under s. 16 of the Act. I readily agreed to that course.

13 By now judgment has been delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dundon to the effect, inter alia, that the fact that the period of sixty or ninety days may have been exceeded is not a bar to an order for surrender being made under s. 16 of the Act.

14 Secondly, Mr O'Higgins submitted that the endorsement for execution of the Warrant received from the United Kingdom has been signed by a Registrar of the High Court and not a judge of the High Court. However, by Statutory Instrument 23 of 2005 the form of endorsement is provided for at s.2 (3) thereof, and this form provides for signature by "Registrar". That point is no longer pursued by the respondent.

15 Patrick McCarthy SC on behalf of the applicant makes application for an order under section 16(1) of the Act. Before making such an Order this Court must be satisfied that the person before the Court is the person in respect of whom the warrant was issued. Mr O'Higgins has conceded that this is so.

16 The Court must also be satisfied that the warrant was endorsed in accordance with s. 13 of the Act for execution. I am so satisfied.

17 As this is not a case of a conviction of the respondent in absentia in the United Kingdom, the undertaking referred to in s. 16(1)(c) of the Act is not required. Neither is the Court required in this case to refuse to surrender the respondent as provided in s. 16(1)...