The High Court has ordered the surrender of a man to Northern Ireland for prosecution on charges of hijacking a vehicle, criminal damage and common assault. The allegations concern an incident in which a taxi driver was allegedly assaulted and his vehicle taken and damaged; they have not been determined at trial.
Mr Justice Noonan made the order on 20 October 2015 under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. The warrant was issued by Belfast Magistrates’ Court on 9 December 2014 and endorsed for execution by the High Court on 13 January 2015. The respondent was arrested at Dundalk Courthouse, Co Louth, on 11 March 2015.
The alleged offences date to 15 November 2011. The respondent was charged in Belfast the following day and admitted to bail on 18 November. The warrant said he absconded while on bail, which the judgment identified as giving rise to the delay in bringing the surrender application.
The respondent objected that the warrant did not sufficiently connect him to the alleged conduct, that delay had prejudiced him because he was a juvenile at the time and an adult by the time of the application, that surrender would be disproportionate, and that the application was an abuse of process.
The judge found the warrant’s account sufficient to show a link between the respondent and the offences. It alleged that three male fares hijacked taxi driver Kieran Logue’s vehicle and assaulted him, then left in the vehicle, which was later found damaged. Although the warrant described the eldest of the three as carrying out the hijacking, the judge considered the further allegations that all three chased and assaulted Logue showed they were acting together. He said the court was not required to assess whether the prosecution had a prima facie case; guilt or innocence was for the requesting jurisdiction to determine at trial.
The delay objection was rejected because the respondent provided no evidence that the delay had prejudiced him or explained how his age at the time could cause prejudice. The proportionality objection was unsupported by evidence, and the abuse-of-process point was neither explained nor pursued in argument.
The court also noted the Director of Public Prosecutions had confirmed there was no prosecution pending or under consideration in Ireland concerning the matters in the warrant. No issue was raised about the respondent’s identity, and the judge was satisfied the statutory requirements for surrender were met. He ordered surrender for prosecution; the judgment did not determine the respondent’s guilt.