The High Court ordered the extradition of Rory P. Doyle, also known as David West, to the United States to face trial on four charges. Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 21 January 2010.
The charges concern three alleged sexual offences involving two girls, identified in the judgment as CP and GSC, and an alleged failure to appear for trial on 6 November 2001. The allegations are not findings that the offences occurred. The court was deciding whether extradition should be ordered, not whether the respondent was guilty.
The respondent challenged whether the alleged conduct corresponded to offences under Irish law. He argued that Florida law did not allow an age-related defence available in Ireland, and that this meant the corresponding Irish offence would be unconstitutional. The judge held that the extradition test required him to consider whether the alleged acts, if committed in Ireland, would constitute an offence here; it did not require the two countries’ defences to match. He found correspondence for the three sexual-offence charges. He also found correspondence for the failure-to-appear charge, noting that the Florida offence required proof that the failure to appear was wilful.
The court rejected the respondent’s objection that extradition would expose him to a real risk of serious violence in a Florida prison. The prison officer’s opinion, the judge said, was too general and speculative, and there was no evidence identifying the prison where the respondent might be held.
The judge also rejected an objection based on the potential length and nature of a Florida sentence. A Florida lawyer’s letter predicted a minimum sentence of 13 years if the respondent were convicted, but the court found the material lacked specificity and evidential support. The judge noted that Florida sentencing rules allowed for downward departures in some circumstances. He said it was generally inappropriate for a court in the requested state to predict a sentence, and that a sentence longer than one likely in Ireland would not by itself require extradition to be refused.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that possible civil commitment under Florida’s Jimmy Ryce Act would amount to double jeopardy or breach the rule of specialty. It relied on safeguards described in the Act, including an adversarial hearing, appeal rights, applications for release and regular review.
The court was satisfied that extradition should be ordered. The judgment records no determination of guilt or sentence; those matters were for proceedings in the United States.