The Minister for Justice and Equality v DM

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Edwards
• Judgment Date: 07 November 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 472
• Court: High Court
• Date: 07 November 2012

[2012] IEHC 472

THE HIGH COURT

Record Nos: 108/2010 EXT

109/2010 EXT

392/2010 EXT

Minister For Justice v M (D)

APPROVED

Mr. Justice Edwards

JUDGMENT

No further Redaction Needed

Between:

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

Applicant

-And-

D. M.

Respondent

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S16

MIN FOR JUSTICE v DOYLE UNREP EDWARDS 17.10.2012 2012/26/7625 2012 IEHC 433

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

RSC O.98 r5(1)

RSC O.122 r7

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S37

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8

MIN FOR JUSTICE v BEDNARCZYK UNREP EDWARDS 5.4.2011 2011/36/9982 2011 IEHC 136

MIN FOR JUSTICE v L (D) 2011 3 IR 145 2012 1 ILRM 270

MIN FOR JUSTICE v MACHACZKA UNREP EDWARDS 12.10.2012 2012/27/7744 2012 IEHC 434

H (H) & ORS v DEPUTY PROSECUTOR OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC & ORS 2012 UKSC 25

EXTRADITION LAW

European Arrest Warrant

Points of objection - Application to amend points of objection - Time limits on application to amend points of objection - Breach of family rights - Factors regarding late filing of points of objection - Issues raised in timely fashion - Prospect of success of in sustaining amended points of objection - Acknowledged evidential deficit - Exceptional circumstances - Interests of justice - Whether amendment should be allowed - Whether breach of family rights - Whether issues raised in timely fashion - Whether prospect of success in sustaining amended points of objection - Whether exceptional circumstances - Whether in interests of justice -Minister for Justice and Equality v Doyle [2012] IEHC 433, (Unrep, Edwards J, 17/10/2012); Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Skowronksi [2006] IEHC 321, (Unrep, Peart J, 31/10/2006); Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Bednarczyk [2011] IEHC 136, (Unrep, Edwards J, 5/4/2011); Minister for Justice and Equality v DL [2011] IEHC 248, [2011] 3 IR 145; Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v FLJ (Unrep, ex tempore, Edwards J, 8/4/2011) and Minister for Justice and Equality v Machaczka [2012] IEHC 434, (Unrep, Edwards J, 12/10/2012) applied - HH v The Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, [2012] 3 WLR 90 considered - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45) ss 13, 16 and 37 - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986) O 98 r 5 and O 122 r 7 - European Convention on Human Rights 1953, art 8 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000, arts 7, 24 - Application refused (2010/108/109/392EXT - Edwards J - 7/11/2012) [2012] IEHC 472

Minister for Justice and Equality v M(D)

Facts: The respondent was the subject of European arrest warrants on foot of which Poland sought his extradition. The respondent alleged that his surrender ought to be prohibited on the basis that there was real risk that his daughter would suffer treatment in breach of Article 8 ECHR if he was surrendered and that if he was surrendered to Poland, there was a real risk that he would suffer treatment in breach of his family rights.

Held by Edwards J. that the Court was not satisfied that the interests of justice required the granting of the amendment sought and the Court would refuse the application. The respondent was not able to adduce evidence of sufficient cogency to have any real prospect of satisfying the Court that to surrender the respondent would disrespect the right to respect for family life. The points of objection were not field before the hearing date in this case but even if the amendment was allowed, it would have little prospect of success.

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Edwards delivered on the 7th day of November, 2012.

2 In this case the respondent is the subject of three separate European arrest warrants, dated the ] 8 ^th June, 2009, the 4 ^th February, 2010 and the 7 ^th October. 2010, respectively, and on foot of which the Republic of Poland seeks his rendition for the purposes of having him serve sentences, or the balance(s) thereof remaining to be served, as the case may be, imposed upon him by courts in Myszków, Poland in respect of the various offences that are the subject of the three wan-ants in question.

3 The warrants were indorsed for execution by this Honourable Court and were executed together on the 12 ^th August, 2011 when the respondent was arrested by Garda Ray Moloney. Following execution of the warrants the respondent was brought before the High Court as required by s. 13 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (hereinafter "the Act of 2003"). This took place on the 13 ^th August 2011, and oral evidence was received as to arrest and identity which was not challenged. In each case the Court, being satisfied at the s. 13 hearing as to execution of the warrant, and also as to identity, fixed a date for the purposes of s. 16 of the Act of 2003, such date being a date falling not more than 21 days from the date of arrest. Thereafter each case was adjourned from time to time until ultimately a date was fixed for a substantive surrender hearing.

4 The respondent filed separate Points of Objection to his surrender in each set of proceedings on the 18 ^th June, 2009, the 4 ^th February, 2010 and the 7 ^th October, 2010, respectively. He subsequently, with the consent of the applicant, sought this Court's leave to file additional Points of Objection in each set of proceedings, and having been granted such leave filed additional Points of Objection on the 20th February. 2012.

5 The matter first came on for hearing on the 21 ^st June, 2012. It was not concluded on that date and was adjourned part heard until the 16 ^th July, 2012. There was a further hearing on that date but again it was not concluded and the matter was further adjourned part heard and was listed for mention on the 2 ^nd October, 2012 for the purposes of fixing a date for resumption of the hearing with a view to concluding the case. On the 2 ^nd October, 2012 a date was fixed for resumption of the hearing, namely the 23 ^rd October, 2012.

6 When the matter resumed on the 23 ^rd October, 2012 the respondent sought informally, and without the service of a formal motion, further leave of the Court to amend his Points of Objection a second time to add yet another ground of objection. Having regard...