The High Court has adjourned a European Arrest Warrant surrender application after finding that the respondent lacked capacity to participate in the hearing. The court remanded him in custody for a period tied to treatment, no longer than three months, and said it would ask the UK issuing judicial authority whether he had legal representation when he pleaded guilty.
The case concerns a warrant seeking the respondent’s return to the UK to serve the remaining 493 days of a three-year sentence for wounding. The judgment records that he was arrested in Ireland on 9 June 2015 and initially indicated that he wished to consent to surrender. He later refused to sign the consent document, and the case was set for a hearing under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Psychiatrist Dr Conor O’Neill reported that the respondent had paranoid schizophrenia and was actively psychotic. He said delusional beliefs impaired the respondent’s ability to instruct his lawyers, including beliefs that a UK prison officer was driving the surrender proceedings and intended to harm him if he returned. The Minister did not seek a second psychiatric assessment. The court heard and accepted Dr O’Neill’s evidence.
The judge applied a civil capacity test: whether, with appropriate explanation, the respondent sufficiently understood the decisions required in the proceedings and their consequences. She found that his delusions impaired his understanding of the consequences of opposing surrender. The judgment also recognised that he had understandable reasons for resisting return, including wanting to be near his family. The finding addressed his capacity at that time; it did not determine whether surrender was legally prohibited.
The court held that lack of capacity alone was not a ground to refuse surrender and that provisions of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 did not govern these warrant proceedings. It found it could adjourn the section 16 hearing and remand the respondent to allow treatment, subject to the period being no longer than indicated as necessary. It cautioned that a remand could become excessive if recovery were unlikely or would take too long.
While the respondent could not participate, the court said it would examine whether legal grounds apparent from the papers prohibited surrender, with his lawyers present. It would ask the UK authority whether he had legal representation when he entered his guilty plea and was sentenced. That enquiry would not prevent him from having section 16 issues considered afresh if he regained capacity. The court made no surrender order in this judgment.