The High Court ordered Bernard Martin Biggins surrendered to Scotland to face trial on a charge described in a European arrest warrant as “assault to injury and attempt to murder”. Mr Justice Michael Peart made the order under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 on 8 November 2006, after rejecting four objections raised for the respondent.
The warrant was issued by a sheriff at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 17 August 2006 and endorsed for execution in Ireland on 5 September. Biggins was arrested on 8 September. The judgment says a domestic warrant had issued after he failed to appear in court on 4 October 2004, having been granted bail and remanded to that date.
The alleged facts in the warrant were that Biggins and his partner and her seven-month-old baby lived together at an address in Glasgow. During an argument, he allegedly approached her from behind, grabbed her by the throat and tightened his grip until she lost consciousness. She recalled him saying, “I’m going to leave you something to remember me by”, before he applied further pressure. Police noticed redness on her neck after she complained. These were allegations set out in the warrant, not findings about the incident.
The respondent argued that the warrant was defective because it identified the charge as attempted murder but ticked a category for “murder, grievous bodily harm”, and that the attempted offence required double criminality to be established. The judge found the discrepancy did not affect the warrant’s substance or leave the respondent in doubt about the charge. He held that the category referred to the underlying offence of murder and that double criminality did not need separate verification for the attempted offence.
The court also rejected an argument that surrender was barred because the alleged offence was “connected with” the respondent’s sex under section 37. The judge interpreted the provision in its context as addressing discrimination, and concluded that the respondent’s interpretation would produce an absurd result.
A further objection concerned detention after a surrender order. The judge said the anticipated detention did not provide grounds to refuse surrender. He did not decide whether section 16(4) was constitutional; he noted that the respondent could bring an application under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution after an order, and that the Act provided for surrender within a limited period, subject to relevant applications or postponement.
Finally, the respondent challenged whether the Framework Decision had received the required prior approval from both Houses of the Oireachtas. The judge said the issue was not properly supported by evidence in that application and would have to be raised on another appropriate occasion. Having rejected the objections before him, he ordered surrender. The judgment does not record whether or when the surrender took place.