The Court of Appeal ruled that one of the offences underlying Martin Wall’s extradition request corresponded with an offence in Irish law, but it did not decide his separate claim that extradition could expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment.
In a preliminary ruling delivered on 24 February 2022, Ms Justice Donnelly said the communication offence could correspond to section 8(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 even though Wall had communicated with an undercover adult police officer, believing the officer was a 13-year-old girl. The section does not require a specific child to exist, she said, where the communication was made to facilitate the sexual exploitation of a child. The court also said the High Court was correct that an attempted offence could provide correspondence in the alternative.
Wall’s extradition had been ordered by the High Court on 11 October 2021, following a request from the US Attorney General. The request concerns three Georgia offences from January 2011. Wall pleaded guilty and received a 15-year sentence, suspended on conditions that included serving between 240 and 365 days at a probation detention centre. After he failed to report as directed, an arrest warrant was issued in January 2014.
The extradition request is for a Georgia hearing on whether Wall violated a special condition of probation. The Georgia court could revoke some or all remaining probation and impose up to 12 years, six months and 11 days in prison, or return him to probation. The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the conditions Wall says he could face on probation would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Wall relied on his affidavit describing homelessness, difficulty finding work and restrictions under Georgia’s probation and sex-offender regime. The court noted that the US prosecutor had said it would recommend a period of imprisonment followed by termination of any remaining probation, if any. But that was a recommendation, not an undertaking. The ruling found no evidence showing how likely a Georgia court would be to accept it, and said the available evidence left open the possibility of further probation.
The court said the remaining appeal required further submissions on how the presumption that the requesting state acts in good faith should affect assessment of future risk, including risks arising from events later in the process. It also asked the parties to address whether the Court of Appeal could seek further information or assurances from the US, or remit the matter to the High Court to do so.
The case was listed for directions on submissions on 25 February. The ruling determined the correspondence issue conclusively, but did not conclude the appeal on Wall’s inhuman-treatment ground.