The Supreme Court has dismissed Patrick Lee’s appeal against an order committing him to prison pending extradition to the United States, holding that Ireland’s territoriality bar did not apply to the offences alleged in his case. It said counsel should be heard further on the precise order to facilitate extradition.
The United States sought Lee’s extradition to stand trial on 51 alleged offences, said to have been committed there between 20 February 2006 and 4 May 2007. The allegations included wire fraud, unlawful monetary transactions and aggravated identity theft. They remain allegations; the Supreme Court was deciding an extradition appeal, not guilt.
The High Court made the commitment order on 23 March 2015 under section 29 of the Extradition Act 1965. The Court of Appeal dismissed Lee’s appeal. The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Clarke on 24 October 2017, addressed whether section 15 of the 1965 Act, in its original form, barred extradition where an offence was regarded under Irish law as having been committed in Ireland. The parties agreed that the original version applied.
Lee argued that the alleged conduct could also be prosecuted in Ireland as conspiracy under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. The Chief Justice assumed for the purpose of the appeal that this was possible. The court held that an offence’s being prosecutable in Ireland despite conduct abroad did not, by itself, mean Irish law regarded it as committed in Ireland.
Lee also relied on section 74 of the 2006 Act, which allows proceedings for certain offences involving acts outside Ireland to be brought in any place in the State and says the offence may be treated as committed there “for all incidental purposes”. The court interpreted that provision as addressing procedural matters, including which District or Circuit Court could hear proceedings. It did not deem the offences to have been committed in Ireland for section 15.
The court therefore found that section 15 was not engaged and upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the High Court order. It did not decide whether the US offences and a possible Irish offence under section 71 were sufficiently similar for section 15, explaining that this question was unnecessary to resolve. It also said the question of whether an earlier Supreme Court decision, Attorney General v Pocevicius, was correctly decided did not arise on its analysis.