The High Court has ordered Gerard Shannon’s surrender to the United Kingdom to face trial on six alleged burglaries of stately homes in England. The order followed the court’s rejection of objections that the European arrest warrant lacked sufficient detail and that surrender would breach his fair-trial rights.
In a judgment delivered on 15 February 2012, Mr Justice Edwards said Shannon did not consent to surrender. The warrant, issued in England and Wales, sought his return for prosecution. The court found the warrant had been properly endorsed and executed, identified Shannon as the person sought, and met the legal requirements for surrender. It also found that each alleged offence corresponded to burglary under Irish law and met the minimum-gravity threshold.
The warrant described a trip to England in 2008 by Shannon and his brother, Andrew. Andrew was arrested at Castle Howard and later pleaded guilty to six burglaries, receiving a three-year prison sentence. The warrant alleged that Gerard Shannon was seen with his brother at Castle Howard, was later stopped in Dublin driving a car seen there, and had items linked to six stately homes in the vehicle. It also said the car’s navigation system contained locations associated with stately homes. These were allegations in the warrant, not findings that Shannon committed the offences.
Shannon argued that the warrant did not adequately explain his alleged involvement, particularly in the burglaries beyond Castle Howard. The court rejected that objection. It held that the warrant set out enough circumstantial detail to indicate the alleged joint enterprise and did not need to specify every act Shannon was said to have personally performed. The court said the warrant clearly identified burglary charges, rather than possible handling offences.
Shannon also argued that his previous convictions might be admitted in an English trial to show propensity to commit burglary, creating a real risk of an unfair trial. His counsel relied on an expert opinion about the law of England and Wales and on Irish rules governing evidence of previous convictions. The Minister disputed that surrender should be refused on that basis.
The court held that differences between Irish and English evidence rules did not establish a fundamental defect in the issuing state’s justice system. It also found Shannon had not shown that the challenged evidence was likely to be used or that its possible use would create the required egregious risk. The court therefore rejected the objection under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Having dismissed both objections, the High Court ordered Shannon’s surrender under section 16 of the Act. The judgment addressed whether he should be surrendered to face prosecution; it did not decide whether he was guilty.