The High Court directed the release of Ciaran Tobin after ruling that he did not fall within the category of people who could be surrendered under section 10(d) of Ireland’s European Arrest Warrant Act. The court held that the provision applied to a person who fled after being sentenced and before starting or completing the sentence. Tobin had left Hungary before his trial, with permission under its law.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 12 January 2007, concerned Hungary’s request for Tobin’s surrender to serve a sentence imposed in his absence. The alleged road traffic offence took place on 9 April 2000. Two young children died after being struck by a vehicle driven by Tobin, according to the warrant. He was convicted in Hungary on 7 May 2002 and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment; an appeal suspended the final 18 months.
Tobin had moved to Hungary in 1997 for a three-year work assignment. The judgment records that he left Hungary with his wife in November 2000 when that assignment ended. He had used a Hungarian procedure that allowed an accused person living abroad to deposit bail and have proceedings continue in their absence. The judge said the evidence indicated that Tobin’s departure was permitted and that he had not acted unlawfully by leaving.
The Minister for Justice argued that the statutory word “fled” should cover Tobin’s departure. The judge rejected that interpretation, finding that “fled” meant leaving with an intention to evade justice, unlike the neutral term “left”. He said the wording and structure of section 10 distinguished between people wanted before trial, after conviction but before sentence, and after sentence. The provision relied on by the Minister covered the last situation.
That conclusion decided the surrender application. The judge directed Tobin’s release under section 16(8). He also addressed other objections, which he rejected: the first warrant’s omission of the suspended portion of the sentence did not invalidate it; the failure to seek endorsement of two later warrant versions did not establish a basis for release; and the alleged conduct could correspond to offences under Irish road traffic law. He also rejected the objections concerning the trial in absentia and Hungary’s EU accession after the offence and conviction. The delay objection was not pursued. The judgment did not order surrender.