The High Court has ordered Adam Stuart Busby surrendered to Scotland to face trial on seven alleged offences involving threats and hoax messages. The order followed a surrender hearing under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003; it does not decide whether the allegations are true.
The warrant, issued in July 2012, seeks prosecution for one alleged threat to contaminate drinking water, one alleged false message about packages containing noxious substances, and five alleged bomb hoaxes. The alleged incidents date from November 2009 to June 2010 and concern communications to people and organisations in Glasgow and Edinburgh, as well as alleged threats involving locations including the Forth Road Bridge and Erskine Bridge.
Busby opposed surrender. His objections included that he was living in Ireland when the communications were made, that Ireland had previously prosecuted him for similar conduct, and that surrender would be disproportionate given his multiple sclerosis and use of a wheelchair. He also argued that the Irish authorities’ position on jurisdiction conflicted with the position taken at his earlier trial.
The court found the offences could be prosecuted in both Ireland and Scotland: the communications were allegedly made from Ireland and their effects were felt in Scotland. It therefore accepted that the warrant offences could be regarded as committed outside the issuing state for the first part of the test under section 44. But the court rejected the objection under the section’s second part. It held that section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 applied to the alleged acts because Busby was resident in Ireland, meaning those acts could constitute offences under Irish law even if committed abroad.
The judge also rejected the abuse-of-process argument. The earlier Irish trial was a criminal prosecution conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions; the present surrender proceedings were a distinct judicial inquiry, with the Irish Central Authority acting in a facilitative role. The court said the different positions on jurisdiction were legally compatible in those different proceedings.
The judgment records Busby’s evidence that he had lived in Ireland since 1983, had two sons living here, and had multiple sclerosis requiring daily medication. The court considered his affidavit and supporting material but concluded that none of the statutory grounds raised required refusal of surrender. It ordered surrender under section 16(1) for trial on all seven offences.