The High Court ordered the surrender of T.E. to France to face trial on laundering and conspiracy charges, rejecting her objection under section 44 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Mr Justice Edwards delivered the judgment on 24 January 2014. The respondent did not consent to surrender.
The French warrant alleged that funds linked to the exploitation and trafficking of Nigerian women passed through T.E.’s Irish bank accounts before being transferred to Nigeria. It accused her of laundering the proceeds as part of an organised criminal group and conspiring to prepare further offences. These were allegations in the warrant, not findings that the offences had been committed. The court noted that the underlying French arrest warrant had been issued on 18 June 2012 and that the conduct was alleged to have taken place between 1 April 2008 and 14 March 2011.
The sole objection pursued was that section 44 barred surrender for offences committed outside France where the corresponding conduct would not constitute an offence under Irish law because it took place abroad. The judge assessed the two offences separately. For the laundering charge, he held that the first condition was not met: the warrant alleged conduct in France as well as Ireland and Nigeria, and attributed acts by members of the group to T.E. He therefore concluded that the laundering offence could not be treated as having occurred only outside France. He added that, even assuming it was extraterritorial, the second condition was not met because Irish law could permit prosecution under section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.
For the conspiracy charge, the judge accepted for the purpose of the section 44 analysis that the alleged agreement was made outside France: there was no evidence T.E. had been in France, and the court could not conclude she entered the agreement there. But the second condition was not met. The judge found that Irish law could permit prosecution under section 71 of the 2006 Act, including where the conspiracy was made abroad and the offence it concerned was committed or intended in Ireland.
The court consequently declined to uphold the section 44 objection. With no other Part 3 ground prohibiting surrender, it ordered surrender under section 16(1) in respect of both offences. The judgment left any decision to treat the charges as alternatives to French prosecuting authorities and courts.