The High Court has ruled that a 78-year-old man may be surrendered to the United Kingdom to face prosecution over allegations of sexual offences against two nieces dating from the 1960s and early 1970s.
In a judgment delivered on 14 October 2016, Ms Justice Donnelly rejected objections under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. She concluded that surrender was not prohibited, and said she could make an order under section 16 for the man to be handed to an authorised person. The judgment does not determine whether the allegations are true.
The warrant alleges nine offences against one niece between 1960 and 1967, when she was aged about two to 14, and one indecent assault against another niece, then 13, in the early 1970s. The court considered whether the allegations corresponded to offences in Ireland and whether the warrant gave sufficient detail about where they allegedly occurred. It found the correspondence requirement satisfied and the information sufficient under section 11.
The respondent argued that surrender would disproportionately interfere with his private and family life. His submissions cited his age, long residence in Ireland, recent bereavement, family ties, health conditions and mild cognitive impairment. The court acknowledged those circumstances but found no particularly injurious consequences that would make surrender disproportionate when weighed against the strong public interest in prosecuting serious allegations of sexual abuse of children.
The court also rejected his claim that his health created a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or a risk to his life. It found no evidence supporting his assertion that he would not receive appropriate medical care if imprisoned in the UK.
On delay and fair trial, the respondent relied on the passage of decades, his memory difficulties, and the absence of his late wife and another alleged participant. The court treated those matters as issues for the trial process and said he had not shown that he would be unable to raise them in the UK. It found no culpable delay by prosecuting authorities after the formal complaint in 2014.
The respondent also argued that the 2016 UK referendum vote to leave the European Union created uncertainty about future protections, including the rule of speciality. The court said the UK had not triggered Article 50 and remained bound by the relevant EU obligations at the time. It found no evidence that the UK would disregard guarantees connected with surrenders already made, and rejected this objection as speculative. The court concluded there was no basis to prohibit or postpone surrender.