The High Court has refused to surrender Michael Connolly to Spain under a European arrest warrant, finding that Irish law did not permit prosecution for the corresponding overseas conspiracy in the circumstances of his case.
Mr Justice Edwards gave judgment on December 6, 2012. The Minister for Justice and Equality had asked the court to order Mr Connolly’s surrender for prosecution on two Spanish offences described in the warrant as endangerment of public health, relating to alleged drug trafficking. Mr Connolly opposed surrender.
The warrant alleged that he acted as a surveillance driver in a drug trafficking conspiracy organised from Spain. It said he travelled ahead of a lorry carrying amphetamine and hashish, to warn others of possible police checks. These were allegations in the warrant; the High Court was deciding whether the statutory conditions for surrender were met, not whether Mr Connolly was guilty.
The court rejected Mr Connolly’s objections that the warrant was too vague, that its detail would prevent him relying on the specialty rule or the prohibition on being tried twice for the same acts, and that Spain had not decided to try him. The judge said the warrant gave sufficient information about the alleged offences and his alleged role. On the Spanish proceedings, the court relied on information that the prosecutor considered there was sufficient evidence to indict him and would do so at the appropriate time. It was satisfied that a decision to try him had been made for the purpose of section 21A of the European Arrest Warrant Act.
The court upheld his objection under section 44. It accepted that the alleged conduct took place outside Spain. The Minister argued that Ireland could prosecute a corresponding conspiracy under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. The judge held that the case did not meet the conditions for exercising that extraterritorial jurisdiction, including the requirements governing when proceedings could be taken under section 74(3). The court therefore found the second condition in section 44 satisfied and was obliged to refuse surrender.
The judgment refused to make a surrender order under section 16(1). It did not determine the truth of the allegations against Mr Connolly.