The Supreme Court dismissed David Johnston’s appeal against a High Court order for his surrender to the United Kingdom under a European Arrest Warrant. The court rejected his arguments about delay, his psychiatric condition and an alleged legitimate expectation that he would not be prosecuted. The High Court order remained in place.
The warrant was issued by Glasgow Sheriff’s Court on 25 July 2006 and related to a domestic arrest warrant dated 18 April 2001. The underlying charges concerned the alleged sale and supply of controlled drugs. Johnston had been granted bail in Scotland, failed to appear at the High Court in Glasgow on 9 April 2001, and later went to Ireland. The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the High Court’s 27 March 2007 order directing surrender.
Johnston argued that the delay, his life and business in Ireland, his medical condition and his fears for his safety made surrender unfair and contrary to his constitutional rights. He said he had been beaten and tortured in Scotland by former associates. The Supreme Court accepted that he had been attacked in the past but found no evidence that prison authorities or police in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK could not protect him. It said the UK had obligations to protect him.
The court accepted that Johnston had a serious psychiatric condition. Reports before the High Court described him as fit to understand the charges and proceedings, instruct counsel and stand trial. They recommended treating him as a vulnerable prisoner and communicating his psychiatric risks, including risk of suicide, to Scottish authorities if he were surrendered. The Supreme Court found no evidence requiring a different conclusion from the High Court, and rejected the medical and delay grounds. It also noted that Johnston’s failure to attend court had contributed to the period of delay.
Johnston’s legitimate-expectation argument arose from a 2005 stop at Holyhead. He said a Scottish police officer had told UK officers he was no longer wanted, leading him to believe the prosecution would not continue. The Supreme Court held that the exchange showed only that he was not required to be taken into custody at that time. There was no evidence that the appropriate prosecuting decision-maker had decided not to prosecute, or that Scottish law made the warrant inoperable. The court distinguished the case from *Eviston*, where the Director of Public Prosecutions had notified the person of a decision not to prosecute.
The appeal concerned whether the High Court had erred in ordering surrender. The Supreme Court found no error of law on any ground and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.