The High Court has dismissed the sole objection to surrendering a woman to the United Kingdom, finding that she knowingly waived her right to attend her trial there. The court did not itself make a surrender order in the judgment excerpt; it dismissed the objection brought under section 45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Minister for Justice v Kathleen Sharina Mc Carthy, delivered by Mr Justice Patrick McGrath on 17 December 2024, concerned a Trade and Co-operation Agreement warrant seeking her surrender so she can be sentenced. She had been convicted in her absence at Lewes Crown Court in 2017 of 17 offences of converting criminal property and two attempted offences. The High Court said the warrant met the statutory requirements, the offences corresponded to offences in Irish law, and no other statutory bar to surrender arose.
The respondent argued that the court could not establish the requirements for surrender after a trial in her absence. The warrant initially stated that she had been summonsed in person and told the trial date and the consequences of not attending. Further information from the issuing state corrected this: the wrong box had been ticked, and the respondent would have to apply for leave to appeal out of time. The High Court accepted that this was not an unequivocal right to a retrial or appeal on the merits.
The court then considered whether her conduct and the surrounding evidence showed an effective waiver of her right to attend. The issuing state said she had attended Crawley Magistrates’ Court on 7 December 2016, was represented by a solicitor and was bailed to appear at Lewes Crown Court on 4 January 2017. She did not attend later hearings. The prosecution file contained no record that she had been warned that her trial could proceed in her absence; the issuing state said such a warning was usual. The court also noted that she had not specifically said in her affidavit that she was unaware of her obligation to attend or that the case might proceed without her.
Justice McGrath said lack of diligence alone could not amount to waiver, and the Minister bore the burden of establishing waiver from the evidence. But, considering the circumstances cumulatively, he found it could be inferred that the respondent knew proceedings were ongoing, had a continuing obligation to attend and that her trial might proceed in her absence. The court concluded that her defence rights were upheld and dismissed the section 45 objection.