A Supreme Court judge said a second application to surrender Ciarán Tobin to Hungary should be refused, citing uncertainty about the sentence, a right preserved by Irish legislation and abuse of process. The judgment was delivered by Hardiman J. on 19 June 2012. It does not, by itself, establish the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal as a whole.
Hungary sought Tobin’s surrender to serve a sentence arising from a 2000 road crash in which two children died. Tobin was convicted in Hungary of negligent driving causing death. He maintained that the crash was not caused by any criminal act or omission on his part.
A first surrender application was rejected by the High Court and Supreme Court. The State later brought a second application after a 2009 law change removed the statutory requirement that Tobin had fled Hungary. The High Court ordered surrender in February 2011, and Tobin appealed. He had surrendered bail and entered custody in November 2011.
Hardiman J. concluded that the fourth European Arrest Warrant did not clearly state the sentence Tobin would have to serve. Earlier warrants differed on whether he could be released on parole after serving half the three-year term. The Hungarian official’s affidavit and later letter also differed on whether the sentence had been amended. Hardiman J. said the uncertainty meant the statutory requirement to specify the sentence had not been met.
He also concluded that the 2009 amendment did not remove a right Tobin had acquired after succeeding in the first proceedings. Applying the Interpretation Act 2005, he considered that the earlier decision protected that right from being disturbed by the later law.
Finally, Hardiman J. considered the renewed proceedings an abuse of process. He pointed to the first application having been pursued despite the absence of a basis for claiming Tobin had fled, and to the lengthy proceedings and their impact on Tobin and his family.
On those three grounds, Hardiman J. said he would decline to order Tobin’s delivery to Hungary. He did not decide the other issues raised on appeal, including complaints about the Hungarian investigation and trial. The supplied judgment is one judge’s opinion and does not include the court’s overall order.