The High Court has ordered Martin Jude Wall committed to prison pending a decision by the Minister for Justice on his extradition to the United States, where he is sought for resentencing after breaching probation.
In a judgment delivered on 11 October 2021, Mr Justice Paul Burns dismissed Mr Wall’s objections to surrender. The order under section 29(1) of the Extradition Act 1965 commits him to prison to await the Minister’s order; it is not itself an order directing his extradition.
The US request relates to three Georgia convictions following a negotiated guilty plea in 2012. The judgment says the offences arose from online communications in January 2011 with an undercover detective posing as a 13-year-old girl. Mr Wall sent a nude photograph and arranged to meet the person he believed was a child. He was sentenced to 15 years’ probation, including between 240 and 365 days in a probation detention centre. After serving that detention, he failed to report as directed and absconded from supervision. A probation arrest warrant was issued in January 2014.
The first objection was that the conduct did not correspond to offences under Irish law because no real child was involved, and that Irish law on impossible attempts was uncertain. The judge found correspondence with Irish offences, including communicating to facilitate a child’s sexual exploitation and attempted offences under child protection laws. He held that Mr Wall’s communications, photograph and meeting arrangements went beyond imagined wrongdoing and amounted to sufficient acts towards the offences. The objection was dismissed.
Mr Wall also argued that Georgia’s probation and sex-offender restrictions could expose him to homelessness, poverty, public disclosure and inhuman or degrading treatment. His affidavit described difficulties finding accommodation and work, treatment requirements and time spent in shelters and a campground. A Georgia attorney’s report described restrictions on where registered sex offenders could live or work and public registration requirements. The prosecution supplied a response disputing aspects of that report and indicating that it would recommend a period of detention after revocation of probation, with any remaining probation terminated.
Justice Burns said the immediate purpose of surrender was further detention and that conditions after release were uncertain. He found no established real risk that detention or later conditions would breach fundamental rights. He dismissed the privacy and inhuman-treatment objections, while noting the sentencing judge would not be bound by the prosecution’s recommendation. The court concluded that the statutory requirements were met and made the commitment order.