The High Court has renewed a request for details about 19 alleged offences before deciding whether David James Cahill should be surrendered to the United Kingdom to serve the balance of a prison sentence. The court adjourned the part-heard hearing while it awaits a response; it did not refuse surrender or make a final decision on the request.
In a judgment delivered on 19 July 2012, Mr Justice Edwards said the European Arrest Warrant did not give adequate details of the circumstances of each offence. The warrant sought Cahill’s surrender to serve the balance of an 11-year sentence imposed by Kingston-Upon-Thames Crown Court on 20 October 2005 for 12 robberies and seven firearms offences. It was endorsed for execution in Ireland on 6 September 2011 and executed on 22 February 2012.
The warrant said the offences took place on dates between 28 April and 19 May 2005 at off-licences, bookmakers or shops. It said two or more people were involved, with one brandishing a weapon and another assisting. But, the judge said, it did not identify the premises or injured parties in each incident, specify what was stolen, or explain Cahill’s alleged role in each offence. The warrant also did not identify the jurisdiction where the offences were said to have occurred.
The Irish Central Authority had sought further information from the UK’s Serious Organised Crime Agency. A response relayed a Crown Prosecution Service legal adviser’s account that the broad facts were similar, that Cahill was linked to some offences by DNA and CCTV identification, and that seven counts related to specified robbery dates. The adviser said further detail would require recalling the file from archive. The High Court found the response unsatisfactory because it did not provide a description of the circumstances of each offence.
Justice Edwards said the details were needed so the court could assess the warrant and Cahill could understand the case for which his surrender was sought and consider any available objections. He noted that the warrant invoked the Framework Decision’s list category for “organised or armed robbery”, so the court did not need to determine whether the offences corresponded to Irish offences.
The judge refused Cahill’s application to reject surrender at that stage. Instead, under section 20(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, he renewed the request for a description of the time, place and Cahill’s degree of participation for each of the 19 offences. He also directed that the judgment be brought to Eurojust’s attention and requested its assistance in securing a satisfactory and timely response. The section 16 surrender hearing was adjourned part-heard pending the reply.