The Supreme Court dismissed Thomas Olsson’s appeal against an order surrendering him to Sweden under a European Arrest Warrant, holding that the evidence did not establish that the warrant was issued only to assist an investigation.
The warrant, issued on 19 December 2006, sought Olsson’s return for prosecution over four alleged offences of robbery and arson said to have occurred on 20 and 21 October 2005. It was endorsed for execution that day and executed on 5 July 2007. The High Court had rejected Olsson’s challenges and directed his surrender. He appealed that decision.
The appeal focused on two issues: the legal assistance available under the Attorney General’s Scheme and whether Swedish authorities had decided to charge and try him for the offences. The Supreme Court said it was unnecessary to determine the precise legal source of any right to publicly provided legal assistance. It considered whether the assistance offered met the relevant requirement.
Olsson argued that because the Scheme was described as administrative and non-statutory, and the Attorney General retained discretion, assistance was not provided as a right. The court relied on an unchallenged sworn statement from a solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor’s Office that, in European Arrest Warrant cases, the discretion was exercised in only one way where a court recommended payment. The court concluded that assistance under the Scheme in such cases was properly regarded as provided as of right, and rejected this ground of appeal.
On prosecution, evidence from a Swedish prosecutor was that a final decision could not be made until Olsson was present, interviewed and given an opportunity to respond to the investigation. The prosecutor said there was an intention to prosecute based on the available evidence, while acknowledging that the eventual decision could depend on the interview and further evidence. Olsson relied on evidence from a Swedish lawyer who considered that he was sought only for continued investigation, as well as correspondence with Swedish police.
The Supreme Court held that the warrant’s stated purpose and the prosecutor’s evidence supported an existing intention to bring proceedings. Under the relevant Irish law, a decision to prosecute did not have to be final or irrevocable. The court distinguished a warrant issued only to investigate, where prosecution would depend on what further investigation revealed. It found that this had not been established here and that the High Court was correct to conclude there was a decision to charge within the meaning of the Act.
The court had separately refused to admit a United Nations report and a translated newspaper article as further evidence, finding they could not materially affect the appeal. It allowed correspondence with police to be opened provisionally, despite doubts about its admissibility. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s surrender order in place.