The High Court refused a United States request to extradite Sean Garland to face trial over an alleged conspiracy involving counterfeit US $100 notes, finding that the offence was regarded under Irish law as having been committed in Ireland.
In a judgment delivered on 27 January 2012, Mr Justice Edwards held that section 15 of the Extradition Act 1965 prohibited extradition in the circumstances of the case. The court referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether to prosecute Garland in Ireland. It did not decide whether he should be prosecuted, and it did not determine the four remaining objections to extradition.
The US request, made in December 2008, sought Garland’s extradition for trial on a charge of conspiracy to commit counterfeiting acts outside the United States. The indictment alleged that Garland and others conspired between at least December 1997 and July 2000 to deal in counterfeit Federal Reserve notes, known as “Supernotes”. Those were allegations in the US case; the High Court was deciding whether extradition was legally permitted, not whether Garland was guilty.
Garland argued that the alleged conduct fell within section 15 because Irish courts could regard the offence as committed in Ireland. The Attorney General accepted that Irish jurisdiction could apply to some conspiracies involving acts in Ireland, but argued that the alleged conspiracy’s main object was dealing in counterfeit dollars abroad and that Ireland lacked jurisdiction over it at the relevant time.
The court considered the indictment’s account of alleged activity in Ireland, including meetings about obtaining Supernotes and transactions involving notes or payments. It found that the alleged conspiracy was an overarching operation formed in or administered from Ireland, with related agreements and acts both in Ireland and abroad. The court concluded that the alleged conduct was sufficiently connected to Ireland to be prosecutable here.
The judge also said Irish courts could assert jurisdiction over a conspiracy formed in Ireland to cause harm principally in another state where carrying it out could harm Ireland’s interests. The judgment cited, among other matters, the allegation that proceeds were intended to raise funds for the Official IRA, which the indictment described as a proscribed organisation.
Because the court found extradition barred by section 15, it treated the four remaining objections as moot and expressed no view on them. The refusal was based on the territorial bar to extradition, not a determination of the underlying allegations.