The Supreme Court has dismissed Martin Stafford’s appeal against a High Court order directing his surrender to the United Kingdom under a European arrest warrant. The order was for prosecution, not investigation, and the Court did not assess whether the allegations were true or how strong the prosecution case was.
The appeal concerned counts 2 to 6 on the warrant. Stafford’s counsel did not appeal count 1, an unlawful wounding charge. The other counts related to the alleged kidnapping, false imprisonment, murder, rape and sexual offences involving Michelle Gunshon, who had been missing since December 2004. Her body had not been found.
Stafford argued that the warrant did not adequately describe the alleged offences or show his involvement. He also challenged the wording of a heading on the warrant, which omitted an express reference to degree of participation or involvement. The Minister for Justice argued that the warrant set out sufficient circumstances and links, including evidence that formed a circumstantial case.
The Supreme Court held that the heading’s omission did not invalidate the warrant. It found that the warrant described the alleged acts and circumstances with sufficient detail. The Court said the legal test did not require a prima facie or strong case; the warrant had to show an alleged link between Stafford and the offences, while guilt or innocence remained for a jury in the requesting state.
The judgment recounted that Gunshon’s car was seen on CCTV being driven from Mill Lane in Birmingham on the morning of 5 December 2004. A licensee identified Stafford as the driver in speed-camera photographs. Her car was later found with her blood and semen matching a profile on the DNA database for Stafford. The warrant also stated that Stafford travelled to Dublin on 8 December and told a witness not to say she had seen him. These were allegations and evidence described in the warrant, not findings by the Supreme Court that Stafford committed the offences.
The Court concluded that the warrant contained sufficient information about alleged involvement to meet the statutory requirements. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s surrender order.