The High Court has ordered the surrender of C. McG. to the United Kingdom under a European Arrest Warrant so that he can face trial in London on allegations of rape, indecent assault and gross indecency. The judgment does not determine whether the alleged offences occurred or whether the respondent is guilty.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 30 January 2007. The warrant was dated 17 May 2006 and endorsed for execution by the High Court on 16 June 2006. The respondent was arrested in Bridgend, Co Donegal, on 5 July 2006 and later released on bail pending the surrender application.
The application followed an earlier, unsuccessful attempt to secure surrender. In that case, the court refused the application because it was not satisfied that the person before it was the person named in the warrant; a photograph showed a date of birth that differed from the date in the warrant. On the present application, the judge found identity established through other evidence, including the respondent’s answers to the arresting officer and an affidavit from a man who said he had known him all his life and worked with him in Basingstoke between 1995 and 1999. The respondent had disputed that he was the person sought.
The respondent argued that the alleged acts described as gross indecency in the warrant did not correspond to an offence in Ireland. The judge held that the acts alleged would amount to sexual assault under Irish law. He also found correspondence for the indecent-assault allegations. Rape was among the offences listed in the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision for which double criminality did not need to be verified.
The court rejected the argument that bringing a second surrender application was an abuse of process, finding no bar to a fresh application in this case. It also dismissed the respondent’s fair-trial and delay arguments. He said memories may have faded and that delay had made it impossible to call defence evidence, but the judge found no specific prejudice identified, such as an unavailable witness or particular evidence that could no longer be produced.
The judge concluded that the statutory requirements for surrender were met and that no statutory or Framework Decision bar applied. He therefore ordered surrender under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended. The judgment ordered surrender; it did not decide the merits of the criminal allegations.