The Minister for Justice Justice and Equality v Maguire
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Clarke C.J.,O'Malley J.,Baker J. |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IESCDET 10 |
| Date | 04 February 2021 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000140 High Court record no: 2017 No. 58 EXT |
IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 (AS AMENDED) AND IN THE MATTER OF CIÁRAN MAGUIRE (DOB: 5 th JANUARY 1988)
[2021] IESCDET 10
Clarke C.J.
O'Malley J.
Baker J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000140
Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2020:000085
High Court record no: 2017 No. 58 EXT
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Respondent to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: Court of Appeal |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 4 th December, 2020 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 4 th December, 2020 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 7 th December, 2020 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 23 rd December, 2020 AND WAS IN TIME. |
The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.
Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.
In that context, it should be noted that the respondent does oppose the grant of leave.
As appears from the judgments of the lower courts in this case and from the notices filed, this application for leave to appeal arises in proceedings in respect of a European Arrest Warrant issued in Northern Ireland in which the surrender of the applicant for leave to appeal (“Mr. Maguire”) is sought. Ultimately the question of Mr. Maguire's surrender turned on the question of whether it had been established that reliance could be placed on s.37(1)(b) of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003 (“the 2003 Act”). That section precludes surrender where the person concerned can establish that his/her surrender would constitute a contravention of any provision of the Constitution. The case law establishes that, in order for that section to apply, a court must be satisfied that surrender would risk giving rise to an egregious breach of rights which would amount to a fundamental defect in the protection of such rights (see- Balmer v. The Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IESC 25).
The issue netted down to questions concerning the extent to which there might be a constitutionally impermissible breach of Mr. Maguire's right to silence should he be surrendered and tried in Northern Ireland because of provisions of the law of Northern Ireland, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which allow certain inferences to be drawn where an accused person remains silent either in the course of questioning by police authorities or during the trial itself. The particular factual background to the case includes the fact that it would appear that Mr. Maguire was questioned, in respect of a different offence, without caution by Gardaí within the State. Questions have been raised as to the extent to which inferences might be drawn at a trial in Northern Ireland from any...
To continue reading
Request your trial