The High Court has ordered the surrender of James Connors to the United Kingdom to face prosecution over three alleged housebreakings and an alleged dangerous driving offence, after dismissing his objections to the European arrest warrant.
In a judgment delivered on 20 November 2020, Mr Justice Paul Burns said the warrant had been issued on 15 May 2020 by Sheriff Thomas Welsh of the Sheriff Court of Lothian Borders at Edinburgh. It was endorsed in Ireland on 15 June, and Connors was arrested and brought before the High Court on 15 October. The judge said the minimum gravity requirements were met and that no statutory bar to surrender had been established.
Connors argued that the warrant’s use of a classification for participation in a criminal organisation was erroneous and created confusion. He also contended that the UK’s proposed Internal Market Bill and statements by UK government members undermined confidence that the UK would honour its obligations or protect his rights after surrender.
The judge accepted that the warrant’s classification appeared to include dangerous driving, although the warrant stated that offence carried a maximum UK sentence of two years. He found the error did not prevent surrender: the acts described would amount to dangerous driving under Irish law and met the applicable minimum penalty threshold. He also found enough information in the warrant to support the classification of the alleged housebreakings as connected with participation in a criminal organisation. Separately, he concluded that the described housebreaking acts would amount to burglary under Irish law and met the relevant gravity requirement even if that classification were not accepted.
The warrant alleged that property worth more than £100,000 was stolen in the three break-ins and said the case formed part of a wider UK investigation into an organised crime group. Those are allegations contained in the warrant, not findings that Connors committed the offences.
On the rights objection, the judge said the UK had not breached a treaty or international law as alleged, and there was no indication from UK authorities that they intended to stop respecting fundamental rights. He held that the presumption of compliance with the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision had not been rebutted. Connors had not produced cogent evidence of a real risk that surrender would expose him to treatment contrary to his fundamental rights.
The court dismissed both sets of objections and found surrender was not precluded by sections 37 or 38 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, or another provision of Part 3. It then said it would make an order under section 16(1) for Connors’s surrender to the UK. The judgment determines surrender; it does not decide the prosecution allegations.