The High Court ordered the surrender of Peter Mc Donagh to the United Kingdom under a European Arrest Warrant, after dismissing his objections to surrender to serve the remainder of a prison sentence imposed there.
In a judgment delivered on 23 July 2020, Mr Justice Paul Burns said the warrant also sought Mc Donagh’s surrender to face prosecution for one theft offence. No objections to that part of the request were pursued at the hearing. The court found the offences listed in the warrant corresponded to offences under Irish law, including possession of stolen property under section 18 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.
The warrant sought enforcement of the remaining two years and three months of a sentence imposed on 8 May 2018 for ten fraud offences and possessing criminal property. The respondent had attended the trial for several days but left after the prosecution case closed. He was convicted in his absence. His objections included that the warrant did not provide enough detail about the convictions and that it failed to establish the safeguards required by section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
The original warrant contained inconsistent indications about whether he had attended the trial and whether he would be notified of a right to seek a retrial or appeal. The UK authorities later supplied additional information and a replacement section of the warrant. That material said Mc Donagh was aware the trial was continuing, had been reminded to attend the next day, and remained represented by a solicitor and counsel through the trial and sentencing hearing.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the court should not rely on the replacement information in light of the original certification. The applicant’s counsel submitted that the updated warrant showed Mc Donagh had mandated legal representatives and was defended while absent.
Justice Burns accepted the additional information, noting that the respondent had not challenged the facts it contained. He found there were no reasonable grounds to question its accuracy or validity. In those circumstances, he said, the issuing authority was not required to provide information about a right of appeal or rehearing, and the section 45 requirements were met. The court dismissed the respondent’s objections to surrender.
The court also found surrender was not prohibited under Part III of the 2003 Act and made an order under section 16(1) for surrender to the UK. The judgment did not determine the merits of the UK theft prosecution.