The High Court has ordered Manuel Rui Seidi’s surrender to Portugal for prosecution on allegations of acquiring counterfeit currency and drug trafficking. Mr Justice Patrick McGrath found that the first European Arrest Warrant (EAW) lacked the required judicial oversight, but ruled that the circumstances did not amount to an abuse of the Irish court’s process.
The prosecution warrant seeks Mr Seidi’s surrender over an alleged counterfeit-currency offence carrying a possible sentence of up to five years, and an alleged drug-trafficking offence punishable by four to 12 years. The judgment records that Portugal certified both as offences meeting the EAW system’s “ticked box” threshold. No issue was raised about that classification or whether the alleged offences correspond to Irish offences.
A first EAW was issued in March 2022 by Portugal’s Public Prosecutor’s Office. After Mr Seidi was arrested in Ireland in January 2024, the High Court sought clarification from Portugal under section 20 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The response confirmed that neither the domestic arrest warrant nor the first EAW had been subject to judicial oversight.
Portugal then issued a replacement EAW under the oversight of a judge. The judgment describes it as materially the same as the first warrant apart from that oversight. The first warrant was withdrawn, and Mr Seidi remained in custody under the replacement warrant.
Mr Seidi argued that Portugal’s authorities knowingly sent an unlawful warrant and that his detention under it breached his rights. He said surrender should be refused for abuse of process, and also raised the possibility that time spent in custody might not be credited if he were convicted. The Minister for Justice argued that the replacement warrant complied with the relevant requirements, that there was no evidence of unfair-trial risk or prejudice, and that any credit for detention was a matter for Portugal.
Mr Justice McGrath agreed that the first EAW was unlawful because it was issued without judicial oversight. He also said Portugal’s authorities knew oversight was necessary under EU law, and that the first warrant should not have been sent to Ireland. However, he did not find bad faith: the oversight defect was corrected promptly, and Portugal candidly explained its legislation had not been updated and that similar questions had arisen in other cases.
In considering whether the proceedings had become oppressive, the judge noted that the replacement warrant complied with the oversight requirement, there was no alleged delay by Portugal, and the authorities had engaged with the court’s questions. He also recorded that no objection was made based on Mr Seidi’s health, family or privacy circumstances, and that there was no evidence he would be denied fair-trial rights or detention credit.
The court concluded that the cumulative circumstances did not reach the level of harassment or oppression required for an abuse of process. That objection therefore failed. Since no abuse was established, the judge did not decide whether surrender could nevertheless have been refused if an abuse had been found. He said he would make an order for surrender under section 16 of the 2003 Act.