The High Court has rejected Thomas Joseph O’Connor’s attempt to stop his surrender to the United Kingdom, ruling that the UK’s decision to leave the European Union did not prohibit surrender under an existing European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2017, Ms Justice Donnelly said the court had to apply the law as it stood. The UK remained an EU member state, and the court found no evidence of a real risk that O’Connor would lose identifiable rights or that the UK would break guarantees connected with his surrender. It also refused his request for a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The warrant, issued in 2011, seeks O’Connor’s surrender to serve a sentence for two offences of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue and for prosecution for an offence of breaching bail. The High Court had ordered surrender in 2015. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed that order on 30 March 2017.
O’Connor argued that after Brexit he might no longer have protections under EU surrender rules, prisoner-transfer arrangements or access to the EU court. The judge considered an opinion from English Queen’s Counsel Helen Malcolm, which discussed possible future changes but described the outcome as uncertain. The court held that this speculation did not establish a real risk to O’Connor’s rights. It also said prisoner transfer was not guaranteed by the surrender rules at issue and did not affect the decision before it.
The court separately refused O’Connor’s request to reopen earlier objections concerning legal aid and alleged abuse of process. It held that the Supreme Court’s final decision could not be relitigated, apart from the new Brexit issue the High Court had allowed him to raise. The judge added that the legal aid point had already been rejected by three courts. She also commented that, even if the abuse-of-process objection could be argued, it would not prevent surrender.
The judgment did not make a new surrender order. It confirmed that the section 16 order made in 2015 and affirmed by the Supreme Court remained in force.