The Court of Appeal has dismissed Daniel Mullan’s appeal against a High Court order committing him to prison to await an order by the Minister for Justice for his extradition to the United States.
The appeal, decided on 12 April 2019, concerned a High Court decision of 14 December 2018. The United States sought Mullan’s extradition to face prosecution in federal courts on four alleged offences: sexual exploitation of a child, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in sexual activity, and two counts of possessing child pornography. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision; it did not itself make a ministerial surrender order.
Mullan argued that the High Court had failed to assess the combined effect of his medical conditions, which he said included blindness, impaired mobility, heart and liver conditions, chronic pain and other ailments. The appeal court said the evidence about his health was scant and did not meet the threshold required by previous cases. It noted that Irish prisons had managed his care during his time in custody and said evidence before the High Court provided reassurance that US federal prisons could also provide adequate facilities.
He also argued that extraditing him was disproportionate and contrary to the public interest, citing his age, health and Irish citizenship, and saying the alleged offences could be prosecuted in Ireland. The appeal court accepted that the seriousness and nature of the alleged offences, described in the judgment as sexual offences directed at a minor, strengthened the public interest in extradition. It said the High Court was entitled to conclude that extradition would not be disproportionate or contrary to the public interest.
On section 15 of the Extradition Act 1965, Mullan argued that the possibility of prosecution in Ireland should have been considered and that the Minister’s discretion to refuse extradition had been undermined. The court said the provision becomes relevant in certain circumstances after a committal decision, and its condition for application had not been met. It therefore also rejected his related challenge to the committal.
The appeal court rejected the costs challenge as well. It said the ordinary rule was that costs follow the event and found no basis to overturn the High Court’s costs order. It also held that the Ireland-US extradition treaty’s allocation of expenses between the two states did not determine how a court should rule on costs in proceedings before it.
The court expressed reservations about whether the appeal grounds qualified as points of law, the only basis for an appeal under section 29(5), but went on to address their merits. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court decision.