The Minister for Justice & Equality v Harrison

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Ms. Justice Donnelly
• Judgment Date: 12 June 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IECA 159
• Docket Number: Record No.: 2020/61
• Date: 12 June 2020

BETWEEN/

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENT

-and-

EAMONN HARRISON

APPELLANT

[2020] IECA 159

Birmingham P.

Edwards J.

Donnelly J.

Record No.: 2020/61

THE COURT OF APPEAL

European arrest warrant – Surrender – Additional information – Appellant seeking to appeal against an order for surrender – Whether the High Court, for the purpose of the execution of a European arrest warrant, was entitled to rely upon additional information provided by a prosecuting authority rather than by the issuing judicial authority

Facts: The High Court (Binchy J), in a judgment delivered on the 24th January, 2020, ordered the surrender of the appellant, Mr Harrison, to the United Kingdom in respect of 41 separate offences. There were 39 offences of manslaughter, an offence of conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration and an offence of conspiracy to engage in human trafficking. A European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued in respect of the alleged participation by the appellant in the deaths of 39 people who were found dead in the back of a trailer which had entered the United Kingdom from the port of Zeebrugge, Belgium. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal contending that the High Court, for the purpose of the execution of the EAW, was not entitled to rely upon additional information provided by a prosecuting authority rather than by the issuing judicial authority. The appellant’s submissions were premised on the basis that the additional information provided by the prosecuting authority was information required to be contained in the EAW pursuant to the provisions of the Council Framework Decision of the 13th June, 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States (the Framework Decision) and the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended.

Held by Donnelly J that the original EAW had contained the information required for the Court to carry out its functions. She considered that both s. 20 of the 2003 Act and Article 15(2) of the Framework Decision permitted the High Court to consider information furnished to it by the prosecution rather than the issuing judicial authority. She held that, having considered the information, the High Court conducted an appropriate assessment of the information and correctly concluded that all the conditions for surrender to the issuing State had been met. In relation to the question referred by the Slovakian judicial authority to the CJEU, in light of her findings in respect of the sufficiency of the information provided in the EAW, she held that a reference was not necessary for the purpose of giving judgment that the order of the High Court to surrender the appellant should be upheld.

Donnelly J held that the appeal would be dismissed with the proviso that the order of the Court should reflect the fact that the appellant’s surrender was no longer sought for the offence of conspiracy to commit human trafficking.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Donnelly delivered this 12 ^th day of June, 2020

1 The appellant's contention in this appeal is that the High Court, for the purpose of the execution of a European Arrest Warrant (hereinafter. “EAW”). is not entitled to rely upon additional information provided by a prosecuting authority rather than by the issuing judicial authority. The appellant's submissions were premised on the basis that the additional information provided by the prosecuting authority was information required to be contained in the EAW pursuant to the provisions of the Council Framework Decision of the 13 ^th June. 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States (hereinafter, “the Framework Decision”) and the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 as amended (hereinafter, “the Act of 2003”).

2 In a judgment delivered on the 24 ^th January. 2020. the High Court (Binchy J.) ordered the surrender of the appellant to the United Kingdom in respect of the 41 separate offences. There were 39 offences of manslaughter, an offence of conspiracy to facilitate illegal immigration and an offence of conspiracy to engage in human trafficking. The EAW was issued in respect of the alleged participation by the appellant in the deaths of 39 people who were found dead in the back of a trailer which had entered the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter, “the UK”) from the port of Zeebrugge, Belgium.

3 The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment of Binchy J. found at [2020] IEHC 29 and it is unnecessary to repeat them in detail here. Since that judgment, the UK authorities have indicated that they are not pursuing the offence of conspiracy to commit an offence of human trafficking contrary s. 2 of the UK Modern Slavery Act, 2015 and to the relevant conspiracy provisions. The issue of whether that offence was sufficiently delineated in the EAW and the separate additional information together with related issues of the requirement (or otherwise) to establish double criminality, had occupied a great deal of the time in the High Court and in written submissions to this Court.

4 While it is no longer necessary to consider whether surrender on that particular offence should be ordered, the fact that the EAW contained only “a ticked box” pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision in respect of the offence of human trafficking is relevant to the submissions made on this appeal. If Article 2(2) is invoked by an issuing judicial authority, there is no requirement for double criminality (or correspondence) with an offence in the executing State to be established. The UK Crown Prosecution Service (hereinafter, “the CPS”) had provided, via the UK central authority, additional information requested by the High Court. In that additional information, the CPS “confirm[ed]” “on behalf of the relevant issuing judicial authority” that all three types of offences were covered by the “invocation of Article 2(2)” in the warrant. The respondent, as applicant in the High Court, did not seek to rely upon Article 2(2) in respect of the manslaughter or illegal trafficking offences and instead proffered corresponding offences. The High Court accepted that the acts alleged in respect of those offences corresponded with offences in this jurisdiction.

The Content of the EAW and the Additional Information

5 It is appropriate to repeat in full the description of the offence set out in the EAW at part (e): “The case against Eamon (sic) Harrison relates to the trafficking and subsequent deaths of 39 people within an artic trailer unit GTR1 28D. At 01:38 on Wednesday 23 October 2019 Essex Police received a call from the East of England Ambulance Service stating that they were getting reports of 25 illegal immigrants not breathing within a lorry in the area of Eastern Avenue, Waterglade Industrial, West Thurrock, Essex. Police attended the scene. The driver of the lorry was standing at the back of the trailer. He was later identified as Maurice Robinson. Inside the trailer was a total of 39 people, 8 females and 31 males who were all deceased. Enquiries revealed that the trailer unit GTR1 28D had been delivered by a lorry BB221 3BP to Zeebrugge, Belgium before being transported to the UK where it was collected by Maurice Robinson from the Port of Purfleet, Essex.

On 22 October 2019 Eamon (sic) Harrison has been identified as the driver of the lorry BB221 3BP which was used to deliver the trailer unit, GTR1 28D to the port in Zeebrugge. CCTV, taken several hours before at a truck shop in Veurne, Belgium shows Eamon (sic) Harrison to be the driver of BB221 3BP. That lorry deposited the trailer unit, GTR1 28D at Zeebrugge for its onward transmission to Purfleet, Essex. A shipping notice provided at Zeebrugge when the tractor unit arrived at the gate was signed in the name ‘Eamonn HARRISON.’ Eamon (sic) Harrison travelled back to Ireland in the lorry BB221 3BP via a ferry from Cherbourg, France. Nature and legal classification of the offence(s) and the applicable statutory provision/code:

1) Manslaughter – contrary to common law

The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted.

2) Conspiracy to commit a human trafficking offence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1971

A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of another with a view to them being exploited;

3) Conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1971

A person commits an offence if he does an act which facilitates the commission of a breach of immigration law by an individual who is not a citizen of the European Union. The offence of conspiracy is made out if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences.”

6 The additional information was requested by Binchy J. on the 21 ^st November, 2019. It appears that the necessity for this request was raised by the respondent (the applicant in the High Court). The respondent raised the issue having received the points of objection, but it appears that this was not necessarily a concession that this EAW was defective. The order of the High Court records that the letter was to be sent to the issuing judicial authority requesting a direct reply from the issuing judicial authority, and the contents of the letter are in a schedule to the High Court order. The request for information was transmitted by the central authority of this State to the UK central authority. The request did not contain within it a specific request that the information should come from the issuing judicial authority.

7 The UK central authority transmitted two...