The High Court ordered the extradition of an Estonian woman to the Russian Federation, finding that the requirements of the Extradition Act 1965 were met and that her objections did not justify refusing the order.
In a judgment delivered on 28 November 2007, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the extradition request before the court was Russia’s request dated 21 March 2006. An earlier request, dated 29 January 2004, was not the basis of the proceeding. The court was satisfied that the request and supporting documents met the statutory requirements, that the respondent was the person sought, and that the alleged fraud corresponded to offences under Irish law, including theft and making a gain or causing loss by deception.
The respondent argued that the offence did not exist when the alleged conduct took place in 2000, because the Russian charge cited provisions amended in December 2003. The judge rejected that submission. He said the amendment affected the potential penalty and appeared to provide for a less severe penalty. He also noted that no Russian legal expert evidence had been provided and found that the respondent had not established a breach of her constitutional rights.
The respondent also said Russian police had seriously assaulted and threatened her during an October 2000 arrest, and that she feared inhuman or degrading treatment if returned. She raised concerns about receiving a fair trial, alleged corruption and criminal justice system defects, and said documents taken from her home were unavailable for her defence.
The judgment records that Russia said the 2000 arrest concerned an unrelated administrative offence: failing to register her presence at an address within three days. Russian authorities supplied contemporaneous arrest and search reports. The judge accepted that the court could consider those reports, although they had not been exhibited by their authors in affidavits. He said extradition proceedings were not criminal trials subject to the same strict evidence rules.
The judge did not find the respondent’s account credible, describing it as uncorroborated. He also concluded that the single alleged incident and general country information did not establish, on the required probability standard, that mistreatment would occur if she were extradited. He said substantial grounds based on evidence of a sufficient nature were required to refuse extradition.
The court ordered the respondent committed to await the Minister’s order for extradition. The judgment did not itself record that the surrender had taken place.