The High Court has ordered the surrender of an anonymised respondent to the United Kingdom under a European arrest warrant, rejecting objections based on delay, health and the risk of an unfair trial.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 24 November 2006. The warrant, dated 7 March 2006, sought the respondent in connection with allegations of rape and indecent assaults against two girls between March 1989 and June 2001. The court stressed that the charges were allegations; it was deciding whether surrender was permitted, not whether the respondent was guilty.
The respondent was arrested in Ireland on 31 March 2006. His counsel argued that delays had prejudiced his ability to defend himself, including an unexplained period after UK police received information in March 2004 that he was living in Galway. The respondent also relied on deteriorating eyesight, diabetes and depression, and raised concerns about his health if returned to the UK.
The judge found that the respondent had contributed significantly to the delay by fleeing to Ireland. He rejected the respondent’s account of contacting UK police and of being interviewed in Ireland, describing that evidence as lacking credibility. The judge nevertheless accepted that the period from the March 2004 information to the warrant’s issue in March 2006 was unexplained and appeared inordinate. He found it did not establish prejudice sufficient to prohibit surrender or show a breach of constitutional or Convention rights.
On the fair-trial objection, the judge said real prejudice had to be demonstrated. He found the evidence did not show that the respondent’s health had compromised his ability to defend himself or would make a trial unfair. He also accepted evidence from a UK prosecutor about health care and fitness-to-plead assessment arrangements available in the UK system.
The court was satisfied that the statutory requirements for surrender, including correspondence between the alleged conduct and offences under Irish law and the minimum gravity threshold, were met. It found no statutory bar to surrender and ordered it under section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act. The judgment did not determine the underlying criminal charges.