The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patrick Lee’s appeal against an order committing him to prison pending a ministerial decision on his extradition to the United States. The appeal concerned whether section 15 of the Extradition Act 1965 barred extradition; the court did not make a new extradition order.
The US request, made on 11 August 2011, seeks Lee’s extradition to stand trial on 51 alleged counts: 29 of wire fraud, six of unlawful money transactions and 16 of aggravated identity theft. The allegations concern a mortgage fraud scheme said to have operated in the United States between July 2005 and May 2007. The US prosecutor alleged that Lee and others used straw buyers and false information, including forged property appraisals, to obtain mortgage loans. Lee was said to have received about $1 million in gross receipts. These remain allegations, not findings in the appeal.
Lee argued that the original section 15 prohibited extradition because the offences were regarded under Irish law as committed in Ireland. He relied on Irish laws concerning conspiracy and other offences with extraterritorial reach, and argued that section 74 of the 2006 Act allowed the relevant acts to be treated as committed in Ireland for extradition purposes.
The court said section 15 had to be assessed under the law in force when the alleged offences were committed, rather than when the extradition request was made. It reasoned that using later law could retrospectively criminalise conduct. It also distinguished the section 15 territoriality bar from the separate question of correspondence, or double criminality, under section 10. The High Court had found correspondence established; that finding was not under appeal.
The court noted that the US case did not allege that any part of the charged offences was committed in Ireland, and Lee was not charged with conspiracy. It held that Irish provisions allowing prosecution of certain conduct abroad did not mean these substantive US offences were regarded as committed in Ireland. It also rejected the argument that section 74’s reference to “incidental purposes” extended to extradition, reading it as addressing procedures connected with prosecutions under sections 71 or 72.
Agreeing with the trial judge, the Court of Appeal concluded that section 15 did not bar extradition in this case and dismissed the appeal. The underlying commitment order therefore remains in place, pending the Minister’s decision.