The High Court has ordered Liam Dominic Adams surrendered to Northern Ireland to face prosecution on 18 alleged offences, after rejecting his objections under the European Arrest Warrant Act.
In a judgment delivered on 3 October 2011, Mr Justice Edwards found that the requirements of section 16 of the Act had been met. The order directs surrender to a person authorised by the issuing state to receive him. Adams had not consented to surrender. The judgment concerns whether he should be surrendered for prosecution; it does not determine the allegations against him.
The warrant, issued on 26 January 2010, lists five alleged rape offences, seven alleged indecent assaults and six alleged offences of gross indecency with or towards a child. The court found that the five rape allegations met the statutory threshold without requiring proof of correspondence with an Irish offence. It found that the seven indecent assault allegations corresponded to indecent assault under Irish law, and that the six gross indecency allegations corresponded to wilful ill-treatment of a child under the Children Act 1908, which was in force at the relevant time.
Adams argued that the allegations lacked sufficient detail about dates and places, that the warrant was defective because the underlying arrest warrants were issued at the same time, and that delay, publicity and changes to Northern Ireland’s jury selection rules put a fair trial at risk. He also alleged political motivation and feared restrictive custody conditions. The court rejected these objections, finding the warrant valid and the information sufficient for the surrender proceedings. It said concerns about delay and publicity could be raised before Northern Ireland’s courts, and found no cogent evidence that those remedies would be ineffective or that the prosecution was politically motivated. It also held that the jury selection changes did not amount to an egregious defect requiring refusal of surrender.
The judgment records a lengthy history: an investigation file was sent to prosecutors in 1987, a no-prosecution direction was issued in 1999, and further interviews and statements followed in 2006 and 2007. The court did not decide whether Adams was guilty or whether he would ultimately receive a fair trial. It concluded that his objections did not prevent surrender and made the order.