The High Court dismissed Francis Lanigan’s latest challenge to his detention pending surrender to the UK, refusing his request to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The court continued his existing bail until 21 December 2016 so he could ask the Court of Appeal to extend it in connection with any appeal.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 23 January 2017, gives fuller reasons for orders made on 16 December 2016. Lanigan’s application was brought under Article 40.4 of the Constitution, which allows a court to inquire into the legality of detention. The court said the only relief available in such proceedings was an order directing release.
Lanigan was held under a committal warrant issued after the High Court ordered his surrender under a European Arrest Warrant on 4 September 2015. UK authorities allege he committed murder and possessed a firearm with intent to endanger life in Dungannon, County Tyrone, in 1998. Those are allegations in the extradition case, not findings made in this Article 40 judgment.
His counsel advanced four main grounds: that earlier decisions could be revisited in habeas corpus proceedings; that EU and international standards supported a more flexible approach; that a stay on surrender was legally unavailable; and that delays had made the detention unlawful.
Justice Humphreys held that the application could consider additional grounds, but could not be used as an appeal to revisit final decisions by other courts absent a fundamental denial of justice or other exceptional basis. He considered a prison inspection report from Maghaberry as potentially new evidence, but found it did not establish a real risk sufficient to make the detention unlawful or require release.
The judge concluded that the stay on surrender had been unnecessary because statutory time limits were paused while Article 40 proceedings remained unresolved. But even if the stay had been inappropriate or invalid, he said, that did not undermine the court order authorising detention or amount to a fundamental injustice. He also ruled that the delays did not make detention unlawful, while acknowledging the need for expedition in European arrest warrant cases.
The court refused a CJEU reference, dismissed the Article 40 application and continued bail to 21 December. It also recommended that Lanigan’s costs be covered under the Legal Aid Custody Issues Scheme. The judgment records that an application for leave to appeal in a separate Article 40 case was pending at the time.