The High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge brought by Stephen O’Sullivan after he was ordered to be surrendered to England under a European arrest warrant.
O’Sullivan had been tried before a jury in Luton between January and March 2009. He failed to appear when the jury began its deliberations on 13 March. He was convicted in his absence four days later of offences including conspiracy to defraud and money laundering and was sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison.
A European arrest warrant was issued on 24 April 2009. O’Sullivan was arrested in Bettystown, Co Meath, on 8 September and the High Court ordered his surrender in February 2010.
He then sought to appeal that order. However, legislation introduced in 2009 meant that such an appeal could proceed only if the High Court certified that it involved a point of law of exceptional public importance and that an appeal was desirable in the public interest. Mr Justice Peart refused that certificate.
O’Sullivan responded with an Article 40 habeas corpus application. He argued that the appeal restriction was unconstitutional, discriminatory and incompatible with European rights protections. He also argued that having the same judge decide both the surrender application and the certification request gave rise to an appearance of bias.
Mr Justice William McKechnie rejected those claims. He held that the Constitution expressly permits the Oireachtas to regulate and restrict appeals from the High Court, provided substantive constitutional rights are not undermined.
The judge found that the European arrest warrant procedure as a whole still provided meaningful access to justice. A person facing surrender receives a High Court hearing, may be legally represented, can challenge the warrant and may in certain circumstances obtain further judicial scrutiny.
The court also rejected comparisons with traditional extradition, other domestic procedures and appeal systems in other EU states, finding that the European arrest warrant regime was a distinct system based on judicial cooperation.
The habeas corpus application was dismissed and O’Sullivan’s detention remained lawful.