The High Court refused an application to surrender a man to the United Kingdom for prosecution on allegations of murder and conspiracy to murder dating from 1992. It ruled that surrender would be disproportionate on the exceptional facts of the case and prohibited by section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 because of the respondent’s Article 8 family rights.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered judgment on 22 April 2010. The warrant had issued in February 2007, was endorsed for execution in March 2009 and led to the respondent’s arrest in May 2009. He had previously been arrested in Ireland in 1994 in connection with the same allegations. He was discharged after the Attorney General’s counsel told the court that no evidence would be offered.
The respondent argued that the long delays, his discharge in 1994, his family circumstances and other grounds barred surrender. The court rejected objections based on delay in issuing and endorsing the warrant, fair trial, issue estoppel, minimum gravity, political opinion and legitimate expectation. It found the delay explained by the unusual history of the case and legal advice sought under changed surrender arrangements. It also said the respondent had provided no evidential basis for the claim that the warrant was issued because of his political opinions.
The court treated the Article 8 objection differently. It found that surrender would separate the respondent from his core family, and that the family would probably remain in Ireland. The judgment noted that he had lived in the State for at least 16 years, had married and had four children there, then aged between two and 16, and that the alleged offences were about 18 years old. The court also weighed the time between the 2003 Act taking effect and the respondent’s arrest, during which he had not been told that surrender was being pursued.
The judge accepted that surrender served a legitimate aim: prosecution for serious alleged offences. But he concluded that the delays diluted the pressing social need for surrender and that, on the case’s unique and exceptional facts, proportionality was not satisfied. The court refused the surrender application. The judgment did not determine the criminal allegations, which remained allegations for prosecution in the UK.