The Minister for Justice and Equality v Doyle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 17 October 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 433
• Court: High Court
• Date: 17 October 2012

[2012] IEHC 433

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. [No. 252 EXT./2011]

Min for Justice v Doyle

APPROVED

MR. Justice Edwards

JUDGMENT

IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003, AS AMENDED

BETWEEN

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

APPLICANT

-AND-

YVONNE DOYLE

RESPONDENT

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (THEFT & FRAUD OFFENCES) ACT 2001 S24

DAMACHE v DPP & ORS 2012 2 ILRM 153 2012 IESC 11

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S25

RSC O.98 r5(1)

RSC O.28 r1

RSC O.28 r6

RSC O.52 r1

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S20(1)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S20(2)

MIN FOR JUSTICE v SLICZYNSKI UNREP SUPREME 19.12.2008 2008/42/9026 2008 IESC 73

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 S29(1)

CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1976 S5

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACT 1939 PART V

DAMACHE v DPP & ORS 2011/10/2439 2011 IEHC 197

SIMPLE IMPORTS LTD & SEVEN IMPORTS LTD v REVENUE CMRS & ORS 2000 2 IR 243 1999/23/7430

BIRNEY & ORS v DPP 2007 1 IR 337 2006/6/1072 2006 IECCA 58

RYAN v O'CALLAGHAN UNREP BARR 22.7.1987 1987/8/2214

BYRNE v GREY & ORS 1988 IR 31 1988/4/949

CONSTITUTION ART 40.5

AG, PEOPLE v O'BRIEN 1965 IR 142

AG, PEOPLE v HOGAN 1 FREWEN 360

DPP v DUNNE 1994 2 IR 537 1994/9/2621

CAMENZIND v SWITZERLAND 1999 28 EHRR 458

HUNTER & ORS v SOUTHAM INC 1984 2 SCR 145 11 DLR (4TH) 641

CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2

CONSTITUTION ART 40.6

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S25(1)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S25(2)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S25(4)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S25(7)

AAMAND v JUDGE SMITHWICK & AG 1995 1 ILRM 61 1994/8/2009

FORDE & KELLY EXTRADITION LAW & TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 4ED 2011

M (S) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP SUPREME 3.5.2005 2005/37/7640 2005 IESC 27

MIN FOR JUSTICE v SKOWRONSKI UNREP PEART 31.10.2006 2006/40/8540 2006 IEHC 321

RSC O.122 r7

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13(3)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S14

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S25(3)

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S25(4)(B)

CRIMINAL LAW

Extradition

European arrest warrant - Practice and procedure - Leave to amend points of objection - Nature of European arrest warrant procedure - Power of court to receive additional information - Nature of points of objection - Interpretation of European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, s 25 - Purpose of s 25(4) -Whether "place" includes dwelling - Whether in interests of justice to grant leave to amend - Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Sliczynski [2008] IESC 73, (Unrep, SC, 19/12/2008) applied - Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Skowronski [2006] IEHC 321, (Unrep, Peart J, 31/10/2006) approved - Damache v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] IESC 11, [2012] 2 IR 266; Simple Imports Ltd v Revenue Commissioners [2000] 2 IR 243; The People (Attorney General) v O'Brien [1965] IR 142; The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Birney [2006] IECCA 58, [2007] 1 IR 337; Aamand v Smithwick [1995] 1 ILRM 61; M(S) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2005] IESC 27, (Unrep, SC, 3/5/2005); Ryan v O'Callaghan (Unrep, Barr J, 22/7/1987); Byrne v Grey [1988] IR 31; The People v Hogan (1972) 1 Frewen 360; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dunne [1994] 2 IR 537; Camenzind v Switzerland (1997) 28 EHRR 458 and Hunter v Southam Inc. [1984] 2 SCR 145 considered - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), Os 5, 28, 52, 98 and 122 - Offences Against the State Act 1939, s 29(1) - Criminal Law Act 1976 (No 32) - Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (No 50) - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45), ss 13, 14, 16, 20, 25 and 37 -Constitution of Ireland 1937, Art 40 - Council Framework Decision 13/6/2002 - Application refused (2011/252EXT - Edwards J - 17/10/2012) [2012] IEHC 433

Minister for Justice and Equality v Doyle

Facts: The respondent was the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the UK authorities. The respondent had been brought before the High Court in accordance with s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003. At a late stage in the hearing of the main application it was counsel on behalf of the respondent sought to a raise a point relating to the European arrest warrant and whether the arresting Garda ought to have obtained a domestic warrant to effect an entry to the respondent's dwelling house [ Damache v DPP [2012] 2 ILRM 153]. This allegedly was in breach of her constitutional right to the inviolability of her dwelling. In circumstances where there had been a violation of the respondent's dwelling at the time of her arrest any evidence seized at the time was unlawfully obtained and the respondent's subsequent detention was unlawful. Leave was sought from the court in order to amend the pleadings so as to raise the new grounds. Objection was taken on behalf of the applicant that they were not on notice of the new ground and the application was not in accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts. Concern was also expressed that the application was a delaying tactic and an attempt to delay the process.

Held by Edwards J in refusing the application: The European arrest warrant procedure was unique. It had more in common with an inquiry than with an adversarial procedure. The argument that the respondent was seeking to raise had not pleaded at the appropriate time in accordance with the Rules of the Superior Courts. The point in question was very weak and would have poor prospects of success if permitted to proceed. The respondent had resisted every offer made to her to expedite a hearing of her case. The court was not therefore disposed to lightly contemplate a situation that would inevitably give rise to yet further delay. It was not in the interests of justice to grant the amendment sought.

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Edwards delivered on the 17th day of October, 2012

Introduction

2 The respondent is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter "the U.K.") on the 27th June. 2011. The warrant was endorsed for execution in this jurisdiction by the High Court (Peart J.) on the 15th July, 2011. The respondent was arrested on the 8 ^th January. 2012, and brought before the High Court in accordance with s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2003") when a date was fixed for the purposes of s. 16 of the Act of 2003. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time, mostly upon the application of the respondent, until it came on for a surrender hearing spread across various dates in July, 2012.

3 The hearing commenced on Thursday the 12 ^th July, 2012, but it was not possible to conclude the surrender hearing on that date, and it was adjourned part heard to Friday the 27 ^th July, 2012. The hearing was only briefly resumed on the 27 ^th July, 2012, because the respondent's counsel sought a short adjournment in circumstances where they had only been served that morning with certain written legal submissions by the applicant and wanted time to consider them before responding. The Court acceded to that application and further adjourned the case until 11 am on Monday the 30 ^th July, 2012, when it was due to conclude.

4 The further legal argument that the Court was due to receive on that date was in respect of a point of statutory interpretation relating to the scope of s. 24 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 (and in particular whether a driving licence is an instrument within the meaning of s. 24 aforesaid) arising from a point of objection on correspondence (point no 4) raised by the respondent in Points of Objection tiled by her on the 20 ^th June, 2012. It was anticipated that after receiving the parties further submissions on this point, and any further submissions that the parties might wish to make concerning additional information received post the hearing of the 12 ^th July, 2012, the Court would then reserve judgment, all other points in the case having been fully argued on the 12 ^th July, 2012.

5 When the matter was resumed on the morning of the 30 ^th July, 2012, the hearing continued for another hour approximately, and was almost at an end, when the Court enquired of senior counsel for the respondent if he was continuing to maintain his objection to correspondence in the case of certain of the offences, in light of additional information that was then to hand. Counsel indicated that he was indeed continuing to maintain his objection and the Court then pressed him to engage with the additional information and to state how, in the light of that information, he could still maintain the objection in question. Counsel responded by requesting a short recess to enable him to take further instructions. The Court acceded to this request and to facilitate the taking of further instructions, the Court interposed a short application in another case.

6 When the matter was eventually resumed counsel for the respondent indicated that while he didn't wish to say anything further with respect to the additional information, he had received instructions to raise a completely new point, what he described as a "Damache" point (referring to Damache v. Director of Public Prosecutions, Ireland and the Attorney General [2012] 2 I.L.R.M. 153). His client now wished to further object to her surrender on the basis that she was arrested on foot of the European arrest warrant in this case as a result of the arresting Garda effecting an entry to her dwelling house without having first obtained a domestic warrant authorising him to so enter, allegedly in breach of her constitutional right to the inviolability of her dwelling. She would further seek to argue that s.25 of the Act of 2003 does not...